{ "id": 8171827, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERIC MARSHALL HAMMETT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hammett", "decision_date": "2007-03-20", "docket_number": "No. COA05-377-2", "first_page": "316", "last_page": "323", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "182 N.C. App. 316" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "635 S.E.2d 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636933, 12636934, 12636935 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/635/0899-01", "/se2d/635/0899-02", "/se2d/635/0899-03" ] }, { "cite": "627 S.E.2d 501", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635395 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504-05" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/627/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "625 S.E.2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634960 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/625/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "637 S.E.2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637285 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/637/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 S.E.2d 626", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "628" }, { "page": "628" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 N.C. App. 724", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527317 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "727" }, { "page": "727" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/59/0724-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 S.E.2d 398", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "407" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 753", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2518221 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "767" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 S.E.2d 105", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "108" }, { "parenthetical": "quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 N.C. App. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358450 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/87/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "431 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "5" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2529593 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "100" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "424 S.E.2d 687", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "690" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525252 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "578 S.E.2d 642", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "647", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. McClees, 108 N.C. App. 648, 653, 424 S.E.2d 687, 690 (1993)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N.C. App. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9185720 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. McClees, 108 N.C. App. 648, 653, 424 S.E.2d 687, 690 (1993)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/157/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-202.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(2)" }, { "page": "(a)(l)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "561 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "255-56", "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 219909 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336", "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 S.E.2d 920", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "925" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867565 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 578", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3792577, 3796355, 3797867, 3787564, 3791245, 3787661, 3786934, 3792537, 3788729, 3787135 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0578-02", "/nc/360/0578-09", "/nc/360/0578-10", "/nc/360/0578-06", "/nc/360/0578-05", "/nc/360/0578-04", "/nc/360/0578-08", "/nc/360/0578-07", "/nc/360/0578-03", "/nc/360/0578-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 N.C. App. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8300897 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61-62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/177/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139608 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "385" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "572 S.E.2d 108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "130", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511176 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 S.E.2d 655", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663", "parenthetical": "plain error review available for errors in the admission of evidence and jury instructions" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N.C. App. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9184753 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33", "parenthetical": "plain error review available for errors in the admission of evidence and jury instructions" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/157/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "432 S.E.2d 710", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" }, { "page": "714" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.C. App. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521747 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" }, { "page": "289-90" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/111/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E.2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4709904 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "254" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 N.C. App. 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8352844 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/175/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3738550 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0092-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 821, "char_count": 17254, "ocr_confidence": 0.753, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2972655563940183e-07, "percentile": 0.6213537932134268 }, "sha256": "9328ef1b9e83d50ca62052595eecf61491b928122de67b9922c30dc73a4b7e65", "simhash": "1:01ae656144a345be", "word_count": 2867 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:32:14.097428+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TYSON and STROUD concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERIC MARSHALL HAMMETT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEVINSON, Judge.\nEric Marshall Hammett (defendant) appeals judgment entered 11 February 2004 upon his convictions of three counts of statutory sexual offense and seven counts of taking indecent liberties with a child. The relevant facts were recently articulated by our Supreme Court in State v. Hammett, 361 N.C. 92, 637 S.E.2d 518 (2006), and in this Court\u2019s prior opinion State v. Hammett, 175 N.C. App. 597, 625 S.E.2d 168 (2006). We find no error.\nIn defendant\u2019s first remaining argument on appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by excluding evidence that the charges were committed by another individual. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court disallowed defendant from questioning the prosecuting witness regarding her sleeping in the same bed with a boyfriend around the same period of time that defendant was accused of conduct giving rise to the indictments. We disagree.\nIt is a well-established principle that an accused is assured of the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. State v. Newman, 308 N.C. 231, 254, 302 S.E.2d 174, 187 (1983). However, cross-examination concerning a victim\u2019s sexual history is limited by North Carolina\u2019s Rape Shield Statute. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 412 (2005). Rule 412 provides, in pertinent part, that \u201cthe sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution unless such behavior . . . [i]s evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant[.]\u201d\nThis statute was designed to protect the complainant from unnecessary humiliation and embarrassment while shielding the jury from unwanted prejudice that might result from admitting evidence of sexual conduct which has little relevance. Under procedures mandated by this statute, the proponent of such evidence . . . must first apply to the trial court for a determination of the relevance of the complainant\u2019s sexual behavior. The trial court is then required to conduct an in camera hearing ... to consider the proponent\u2019s offer of proof and the argument of counsel....\nState v. Black, 111 N.C. App. 284, 289, 432 S.E.2d 710, 714 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\nC.H. was the sole witness at the in camera hearing. The relevant portions of her examination are as follow:\n[Defense Attorney]: And is it fair to \u2014 well, were you and [he] boyfriend and girlfriend. . . . ?\n[C.H.]: Yes, sir.\n[Defense Attorney]: About how long did that relationship last?\n[C.H.]: Maybe three weeks, close to a month.\n[Defense Attorney]: Did you ever sleep in the same bed as [him]?\n[C.H.]: Yes, sir.\n[Defense Attorney]: About how many nights did you sleep in the same bed as [him]?\n[C.H.]: Approximately every night.\n[Defense Attorney]: And did you all have a sexual relationship of any sort?\n[C.H.]: No.\n[Defense Attorney]: You hugged; is that fair to say?\n[C.H.]: Uh-huh (yes).\n[Defense Attorney]: Kissed each other; is that fair to say?\n[C.H.]: No.\n[Defense Attorney]: Never \u2014 he never touched your private parts, you never touched his private parts?\n[C.H.] No.\nThe above colloquy was the only evidence offered in support of defendant\u2019s assertion that sexual conduct between C.H. and another individual explained the physical findings, specifically \u201cthe medical evidence of penetration.\u201d Defendant\u2019s argument on appeal concerning the admissibility of the above evidence is controlled by Black. \u201cRule 412(d) contemplates that the party desiring to introduce evidence of a rape complainant\u2019s past sexual activity must offer some proof as to both the existence of such activities and the relevancy thereof. [Since C.H.\u2019s denial of a sexual relationship] constituted the only evidence on this point, there was no evidence of sexual activity the relevance of which the trial court was obligated to determine.\u201d Black, 111 N.C. App. at 289-90, 432 S.E.2d at 714. We conclude that the trial court did not err by disallowing defendant\u2019s request to question C.H. regarding her relationship with her boyfriend. The relevant assignments of error are overruled.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred by admitting C.H.\u2019s testimony that defendant: (1) walked around his home naked; (2) asked C.H. about sexual positions illustrated in a book; and (3) watched pornographic movies with C.H. In addition, defendant contends it was prejudicial error to admit the testimony of C.H.\u2019s friend that she \u201cbelieved\u201d C.H.\u2019s claims against defendant were true.\nDefendant failed to properly preserve these issues for review. Under N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1), \u201cto preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context.\u201d Defendant did not do so. However, because defendant\u2019s arguments concern the admission of evidence, we review for plain error. See State v. Wolfe, 157 N.C. App. 22, 33, 577 S.E.2d 655, 663 (2003) (plain error review available for errors in the admission of evidence and jury instructions).\n\u201cPlain error is applied only in extraordinary cases where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.\u201d State v. Barden, 356 N.C. 316, 348, 572 S.E.2d 108, 130 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To establish plain error, a defendant must demonstrate \u201c(i) that a different result probably would have been reached but for the error or (ii) that the error was so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice or denial of a fair trial.\u201d State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997).\nEven assuming arguendo that the trial court erred by admitting the subject testimony into evidence, defendant is unable to demonstrate plain error. Here, there was plenary evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt. For example, C.H. testified that defendant forced her to watch explicit movies while defendant masturbated. C.H. also testified that defendant made her undress so that he could \u201cmeasure[] the length of [her] private area.\u201d Defendant also took showers with C.H. and inserted his fingers into C.H.\u2019s vagina and instructed her to wash his penis and \u201chold it like you would a hose.\u201d Defendant himself testified that he took naked showers with C.H. because \u201cshe had bad personal hygiene.\u201d And there was testimony of physical findings concerning C.H. We conclude that in the absence of the challenged evidence, the jury would not have reached a different result. See State v. Anderson, 177 N.C. App. 54, 61-62, 627 S.E.2d 501, 504-05, disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 578, 635 S.E.2d 899 (2006). The relevant assignments of error are overruled.\nIn defendant\u2019s next argument, he contends that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the charges in case numbers 03 CRS 8857 and 03 CRS 8861 because the State failed to present substantial evidence of indecent liberties. Specifically, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence that (1) defendant\u2019s commission of, or attempt to, \u201cfrench kiss\u201d C.H was a lewd or lascivious act; and (2) masturbating while laying in a bed with C.H. and watching a pornographic movie was an act committed \u201cupon or with the body\u201d of C.H.\nPursuant to a bill of particulars, the State alleged the following:\n03 CRS 8857 charges the defendant with indecent liberties with a child. The State is unable to specify a more exact time than that provided in the indictment as to be amended (late January to early March 2003). The offense occurred in the residence shared by the defendant and the victim. The offense involved the defendant attempting to \u201cfrench kiss\u201d the victim.\n03 CRS 8861 charges the defendant with indecent liberties with a child. The State is unable to specify a more exact time than that provided in the indictment as to be amended (late January to early March 2003). The offense occurred in the residence shared by the defendant and the victim. The offense involved the defendant having the victim watch a pornographic DVD with him, during which the defendant masturbated in the victim\u2019s presence.\nWhen ruling on a motion to dismiss, \u201cthe trial court must determine only whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and of the defendant being the perpetrator of the offense.\u201d State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65, 73, 472 S.E.2d 920, 925 (1996).\nEvidence is substantial if it is relevant and adequate to convince a reasonable mind to accept a conclusion. In considering a motion to dismiss, the trial court must analyze the evidence, in the light most favorable to the State and give the State the benefit of every reasonable inference from the evidence. The trial court must also resolve any contradictions in the evidence in the State\u2019s favor. The trial court does not weigh the evidence, consider evidence unfavorable to the State, or determine any witness\u2019 credibility.\nState v. Robinson, 355 N.C. 320, 336, 561 S.E.2d 245, 255-56 (2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(2) (2005) provides, in pertinent part,- that:\nA person is guilty of taking indecent liberties with children if, being 16 years of age or more and at least five years older than the child in question, he either[]. . . [w]illfully commits or attempts to commit any lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body or any part or member of the body of any child of either sex under the age of 16 years.\n\u201c \u2018Indecent liberties\u2019 are defined as \u2018such liberties as the common sense of society would regard as indecent and improper.\u2019 \u201d State v. Every, 157 N.C. App. 200, 205, 578 S.E.2d 642, 647 (2003) (quoting State v. McClees, 108 N.C. App. 648, 653, 424 S.E.2d 687, 690 (1993)). \u201cThe uncorroborated testimony of the victim is sufficient to convict under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1 if the testimony establishes all of the elements of the offense.\u201d State v. Quarg, 334 N.C. 92, 100, 431 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1993). This Court has defined the words \u201clewd\u201d and \u201clascivious\u201d according to their plain meaning in ordinary usage. State v. Wilson, 87 N.C. App. 399, 402, 361 S.E.2d 105, 108 (1987). Hence, \u201clewd\u201d has been defined as \u201c \u2018inciting to sensual desire or imagination\u2019 \u201d while \u201clascivious\u201d has been defined as \u201c \u2018tending to arouse sexual desire.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1971)).\nIn the instant case, defendant\u2019s action in \u201cfrench kissing\u201d C.H constituted a lewd or lascivious act within the meaning of G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1(a) (2) and supported the indictment set forth in 03 CRS 8857. C.H. testified, in relevant part, that: .\n[Defendant] told me that he realized I never kissed him goodnight, and [said] \u201cI want you to give me a kiss,\u201d so I raised and then I gave him a peck; and then he told me, he said, \u201cNo, kiss me like you love me.\u201d And I looked weird at him and then he grabbed me by the side of my face and I tried to pull back a little bit, and when he went to go kiss me, I felt his tongue hit my lip. I pulled back and my first reaction was I grabbed him by his jaw and I pressed down. He was moving his head from side to side trying to get out of it, but I wouldn\u2019t let go of him. I finally decided to let go and he [asked] me why did I do that and I said, \u201cYou tried to put your tongue in my mouth.\u201d He said, \u201cNo, I didn\u2019t.\u201d And I told him, \u201cYes, you did.\u201d And he said, \u201cNo, I didn\u2019t. I wouldn\u2019t do that to you.\u201d I said \u2014 I told him, I said, \u201cJust forget it\u201d and I walked out.\nOur Supreme Court has previously articulated that a defendant\u2019s action in inserting his tongue into the mouth of his child in the act of kissing the child fell within the purview of conduct that is lewd or lascivious in accordance with G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(2). State v. Banks, 322 N.C. 753, 767, 370 S.E.2d 398, 407 (1988). In the instant case, the jury could find that defendant\u2019s actions in telling C.H. to \u201ckiss me like you love me\u201d, while pulling C.H.\u2019s face close to his and \u201cfrench kissing\u201d her, tended to arouse sexual desire in defendant. Consequently, substantial evidence of a lewd or lascivious act was presented to the jury.\nIn addition, substantial evidence was presented from which a jury could find that defendant\u2019s actions of masturbation while lying in the same bed as C.H. and watching a pornographic movie were prohibited by G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(2), and therefore supported the indictment set forth in 03 CRS 8861. With respect to this indictment, defendant contends that, in order to be convicted under G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(2), the accused must physically touch the victim. We disagree.\nC.H. testified that shortly after she moved in with defendant, he made her \u201cuncomfortable\u201d by watching pornographic videos in her presence. C.H. further testified that in one instance, defendant compelled her to watch a pornographic video with him while C.H. and defendant were lying in a bed together. During this time, defendant fast-forwarded the movie to certain areas where two men were having sex with one woman, or two women were having sex with each other. C.H. further testified that while the video was playing, defendant \u201cput his hands on his private area and move[d] up and down and ma[d]e groaning noises.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s argument that these actions cannot constitute violations of G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(2) is controlled by this Court\u2019s opinion in State v. Kistle, 59 N.C. App. 724, 727, 297 S.E.2d 626, 628 (1982). In Kistle, this Court applied language in the former version of the Indecent Liberties statute that mirrors the version of the statute applicable to the instant case, specifically the \u201cupon or with the body\u201d language codified in subsection (a)(2). Compare N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(l) (1981), with G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(1) (2005). In Kistle, the defendant took sexually suggestive photographs of children. This Court held that \u201ca violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a714-202.1 does not require any sexual contact with the child\u2019s body.\u201d Kistle, 59 N.C. App. at 727, 297 S.E.2d at 628. Likewise, the conduct supporting the indictment in 03 CRS 8861, masturbating in the presence of C.H., also falls under the rubric of an activity covered by G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(2).\nWe have evaluated defendant\u2019s remaining arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges TYSON and STROUD concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEVINSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kelly L. Sandling, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel R. Pollitt, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERIC MARSHALL HAMMETT\nNo. COA05-377-2\n(Filed 20 March 2007)\n1. Sexual Offenses\u2014 victim\u2019s sexual history \u2014 questioning limited by Rape Shield Statute\nThe trial court did not err in a multiple statutory sexual offense and multiple taking indecent liberties with a child case by excluding evidence that the charges were committed by another individual based on evidence that the victim slept in the same bed with a boyfriend around the same period of time that defendant was accused, because: (1) cross-examination concerning a victim\u2019s sexual history is limited by North Carolina\u2019s Rape Shield Statute under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 412; and (2) the victim\u2019s denial of a sexual relationship with her boyfriend during an in camera hearing constituted the only evidence on this point, and thus there was no evidence of sexual activity of which the trial court was obligated to determine.\n2. Evidence\u2014 testimony regarding sexually explicit materials \u2014 plain error analysis\nThe trial court did not commit plain error in a multiple statutory sexual offense and multiple taking indecent liberties with a child case by admitting the victim\u2019s testimony that defendant walked around his home naked, asked the victim about sexual positions illustrated in a book, and watched pornographic movies with the victim, as well as testimony of the victim\u2019s friend saying that she believed the victim\u2019s claims against defendant were true, because the jury would not have reached a different verdict absent the challenged testimony when there was plenary evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt.\n3. Indecent Liberties\u2014 motion to dismiss \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court did not err by failing to dismiss the indecent liberties charges in case numbers 03 CRS 8857 and 03 CRS 8861, because: (1) defendant\u2019s action in french kissing the victim constituted a lewd or lascivious act within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(2) and supported the indictment for 03 CRS 8857; and (2) substantial evidence was presented from which a jury could find that defendant\u2019s actions of masturbation while lying in the same bed as the victim and watching a pornographic movie were prohibited by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1(a)(2), and therefore supported the indictment in 03 CRS 8861.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 11 February 2004 by Judge Stephen A. Balog in Cabarrus County Superior Court. Originally heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November 2005, and now on remand from the Supreme Court of North Carolina, opinion filed 15 December 2006, reversing this Court\u2019s opinion filed 7 February 2006.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kelly L. Sandling, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel R. Pollitt, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0316-01", "first_page_order": 348, "last_page_order": 355 }