{ "id": 8185761, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLOS LEE WILLIAMS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams", "decision_date": "2007-07-03", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1309", "first_page": "351", "last_page": "357", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "184 N.C. App. 351" } ], "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": "301 S.E.2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "77" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 169", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4710824 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "178" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0169-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 474", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "476", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4700273 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "172", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14.318.4", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "595 S.E.2d 208", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "210" }, { "page": "211" }, { "page": "211" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. App. 169", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8896238 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "172" }, { "page": "172" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/164/0169-01" ] }, { "cite": "571 S.E.2d 619", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "622", "parenthetical": "holding that \"conflicts in the evidence as to [the victim's] level of activity and the extent, if any, to which she appeared to be in pain after the alleged assault are for resolution by the jury\"" }, { "page": "621" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. App. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249282 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "179", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "180" }, { "page": "178-79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/154/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559773 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78-79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "117" }, { "page": "118" }, { "page": "117" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573434 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" }, { "page": "101" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.4", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 7, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a3)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a3)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a3)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 763, "char_count": 16117, "ocr_confidence": 0.74, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.209811994104169e-08, "percentile": 0.3844633412990487 }, "sha256": "42757f79d7a46c257c3f211e5730d56ab88318bf96c5eeaadc289160fb091c3a", "simhash": "1:8d88f062502f415c", "word_count": 2703 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:59.559545+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ELMORE and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLOS LEE WILLIAMS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER,.Judge.\nCarlos Lee Williams (\u201cdefendant\u201d) was convicted of felony child abuse inflicting serious injury on 26 April 2006. Defendant appeals this conviction. After careful consideration, we find no error in the trial but remand to correct a clerical error.\nD.H. is the alleged victim in this case and is the nine-year-old son of defendant. D.H. did not live with defendant but did visit him periodically. On 20 March 2005, D.H. went to visit defendant. The following day, D.H.\u2019s cousin, Quadrick, came over to spend the weekend with defendant and D.H. On 22 March 2005, defendant allowed the two boys to play with a slingshot and then allowed the boys to shoot at bottles with a BB gun. After approximately fifteen minutes, defendant told the children that the gun was \u201cout of bullets[,]\u201d and they went inside for a few hours.\nQuadrick suggested that they go back outside and he and D.H. brought the BB gun back outside. D.H. held the trigger end of the gun and Quadrick held the barrel end. Defendant, who was at a neighbor\u2019s house at the time, noticed that D.H. was pointing the gun at Quadrick and yelled at the boys to \u201c \u2018[p]ut that gun down.\u2019 \u201d Quadrick dropped his end of the gun and it went off shooting Quadrick.\nDefendant ran over to D.H. and sent him to his room. D.H. testified that defendant made him take off all of his clothes except his underwear, and then started beating him with a belt. D.H. went on to testify that the beating lasted for ten to fifteen minutes, then defendant took a break for approximately five minutes, and then beat him for another twenty minutes. After a second five minute break, D.H. testified that he was beaten with the belt for another twenty-five minutes. D.H. then testified that defendant struck him with a belt for the fourth time another twenty-five minutes. In all, D.H. testified that defendant struck him with a belt for at least forty minutes and as much as an hour and forty minutes. D.H. also testified that defendant had him take a bath after the beatings. When D.H. returned to his mother\u2019s home, his mother noticed bruises on his arms, called Social Services, and took D.H. to the emergency room.\nAt the hospital, D.H. told the doctor that his father had beaten him, and he spoke with a detective who took pictures of his injuries. At trial, D.H. testified that he wore bandages for approximately one week and showed the jurors scars on his arms and legs. According to D.H., the scars were the result of injuries sustained while defendant beat him.\nAside from D.H.\u2019s testimony regarding defendant\u2019s allegedly felonious conduct, and pertinent to the disposition of this appeal, D.H. stated that \u201cearlier on in the year like in January, or maybe the 1st um [sic] day of the new year, [defendant] was \u2014 he was cussing at my mom and was like that he was going to start shooting people because it was a new year and stuff.\u201d Defense counsel objected, but the record does not disclose that the trial court provided counsel with a ruling on that objection or that defense counsel moved to strike the answer.\nAn expert in pediatric medicine, Dr. Horton, testified that he was called by an emergency room physician around 2:00 a.m. on 21 March 2005 and went to the hospital. Dr. Horton examined D.H. and discovered multiple bruising, abrasions, shallow lacerations, swelling, and concluded that D.H.\u2019s condition was \u201c[m]oderately to seriously severe.\u201d Dr. Horton admitted D.H. to the hospital to watch for the development of a condition called \u201ccompartment syndrome, where through injury the soft tissues of an extremity can swell and cause the blood supply to be cut off[.]\u201d Dr. Horton was also concerned that rhabdomyolysis could develop. Rhabdomyolysis is a condition in which injured muscles release a protein that can poison blood, causing electrolyte level problems that can lead to cardiac and cognitive problems and perhaps acute renal failure. Testing for those problems proved negative. D.H., however, was diagnosed with \u201c[n]onaccidental trauma.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s father and D.H.\u2019s grandfather, Albert Lee Williams, testified that when he arrived at defendant\u2019s house D.H. was sitting in a chair and looked \u201clike he was kind of mad, like he was puffed up; there was something going on,\u201d but that he did not see any bruises on D.H. He also testified that D.H. had his clothes on. Williams went to the hospital, and while there, saw bruises on D.H.\nDefendant\u2019s brother, Ernesto Williams, testified that he had been at defendant\u2019s home and did not see defendant hit D.H. with a belt, and that to his knowledge there was never any beating. Defendant\u2019s neighbor, on the hand, testified that she saw defendant strike D.H. with the belt four times. She later took D.H. back to his mother\u2019s and testified that she thought \u201ceverything was fine[.]\u201d\nDefendant testified in his own defense. After the BB gun incident, defendant stated that he \u201ctook [his] belt off and hit [D.H.] a couple times on the butt,\u201d and that he \u201cspanked him again a couple more times.\u201d Once inside the house, defendant stated that he spanked D.H. \u201ca couple more times to get him into [his] room.\u201d Once in the room, defendant stated that he \u201cbeat him for like 10 or 15 minutes.\u201d Defendant maintains that there were not four beatings but only one and that D.H. kept his clothes on throughout. Defendant stated on cross-examination that the beatings were not intentional and that some of the injuries to D.H. likely occurred when D.H. had bumped into something.\nAt the close of the evidence, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. The court instructed the jury on the Class C felony defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.4(a3) (2005), and the lesser included offenses of the Class E felony defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.4(a), and a misdemeanor offense defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.2(a) (2005). The two subsections of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.4 contain the same elements except that to be convicted of the Class C felony the defendant must inflict a bodily injury that poses a \u201csubstantial risk of death, or that causes serious permanent disfigurement, coma, a permanent or protracted condition that causes extreme pain, or permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or that results in prolonged hospitalization.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.4(a3). The Class E felony, on the other hand, requires that serious physical injury be inflicted on the child. The jury acquitted defendant of the Class C felony but found him guilty of the lesser included Class E felony. Defendant pled guilty to being a habitual felon, and the trial court sentenced him to a minimum term of imprisonment of 116 months and a maximum term of 149 months.\nDefendant presents the following issues on appeal: (1) did the trial court err in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of felonious child abuse for insufficiency of the evidence; (2) did the trial court err in not striking portions of D.H.\u2019s testimony on the grounds that it was unduly prejudicial; and (3) did the trial court commit an error in its written judgment.\nI.\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and again at the end of all the evidence on the grounds that there existed insufficient evidence to establish that defendant intentionally inflicted serious physical injury upon or to the child. We disagree. The standard of review on a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence is whether \u201cthere is substantial evidence [] of each essential element of the offense charged[.]\u201d State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980).\n\u201cSubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). \u201cThe trial court is not required to determine that the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence prior to denying a defendant\u2019s motion.to dismiss.\u201d Powell, 299 N.C. at 101, 261 S.E.2d at 118. In determining whether there is substantial evidence it is well settled that all the evidence \u201cis to be considered in the light most favorable to the State; the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom; contradictions and discrepancies are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal^]\u201d Id. at 99, 261 S.E.2d at 117.\nDefendant was convicted of the Class E felony child abuse offense. The elements of this offense are: (1) the accused is \u201c[a] parent or any other person providing care to or supervision of a child[;]\u201d (2) such child is less than sixteen (16) years of age; and (3) such defendant intentionally inflicts serious physical injury upon or to the child or intentionally commits an assault upon the child which results in serious physical injury. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.4(a). Defendant concedes that the State has met the first two elements in this case but argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he intentionally caused a serious physical injury. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to the same.\nA \u201cserious physical injury\u201d under the statute has been defined as an injury that causes \u201c \u2018great pain and suffering.\u2019 \u201d State v. Williams, 154 N.C. App. 176, 179, 571 S.E.2d 619, 621 (2002) (citation omitted). Factors helpful in determining whether an injury meets this standard are: \u201c[1] hospitalization, [2] pain, [3] loss of blood, and [4] time lost from work.\u201d State v. Romero, 164 N.C. App. 169, 172, 595 S.E.2d 208, 210 (2004). Under the circumstances presented here, courts should also review whether the child was unable to attend school or other activities. We have previously held that \u201cwhether an injury is \u2018serious\u2019 is generally a question for the jury.\u201d Id. at 172, 595 S.E.2d at 211; Williams, 154 N.C. App. at 180, 571 S.E.2d at 622 (holding that \u201cconflicts in the evidence as to [the victim\u2019s] level of activity and the extent, if any, to which she appeared to be in pain after the alleged assault are for resolution by the jury\u201d).\nThe evidence presented in the light most favorable to the State establishes that: Defendant beat D.H. four different times with a belt for a total time between forty minutes and an hour and forty minutes; D.H. was bleeding, short of breath (due to asthma), and vomited; and both D.H.\u2019s arms were almost entirely covered with bruises, his legs were swollen and puffy, his buttocks were black and blue; and D.H. was in pain for two weeks.\nAdditionally, it is undisputed that D.H. was hospitalized after the incident. Dr. Horton testified that: D.H.\u2019s injuries were \u201c[m]oderately to seriously severe,\u201d the injuries were severe enough as to possibly cause rhabdomolysis and/or compartment syndrome, and D.H. complained of pain during his stay and was given medication to combat the pain and swelling.\n. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, we hold that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer that the injury inflicted by defendant caused D.H. great pain and suffering, and thus satisfied the statutory element of \u201cserious physical injury.\u201d See Romero, 164 N.C. App. at 172, 595 S.E.2d at 211 (finding sufficient evidence to support a conviction under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14.318.4(a) when the \u201cdefendant hit his one-year-old son at least once with a belt, that the child began to cry after being hit, and that the child suffered a visible bruise to his head\u201d); Williams, 154 N.C. App. at 178-79, 571 S.E.2d at 621 (holding prolonged paddling that led to bleeding, swelling, and pain for more than a week constitutes sufficient evidence to support a conviction under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14.318.4(a)).\nUnder N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14.318.4(a), the element of intent is \u201csufficiently established if a defendant intentionally inflicts injury that proves to be serious on a child of less than sixteen years of age in his care.\u201d State v. Campbell, 316 N.C. 168, 172, 340 S.E.2d 474, 476 (1986) (citation omitted). \u201cHe need not specifically intend that the injury be serious.\u201d Id. Given the evidence discussed above and Dr. Horton\u2019s testimony that D.H.\u2019s injuries were \u201c[n]onaccidental,\u201d we hold that the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the State establishes the element of intent. The trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of felonious child abuse.\nII.\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to inform the jury that it sustained defense counsel\u2019s objection to testimony that defendant claims was prejudicial. The record, however, does not clearly support the proposition that defendant\u2019s objection was sustained. Regardless, defendant failed to move to strike the objectionable portion of D.H\u2019s testimony. Our Supreme Court has held that \u201c[fjailure to move to strike the unresponsive part of an answer, even though the answer is objected, to, results in a waiver of the objection.\u201d State v. Chatmam, 308 N.C. 169, 178, 301 S.E.2d 71, 77 (1983). Thus, because defendant waived any objection made at trial and has not argued that the trial court committed plain error, we find no error. In any event, even were we to assume a trial court error on this issue, we do not find that the admission of this testimony was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s assignments of error as to this issue are overruled.\nIII.\nIn his last argument, defendant requests that the written judgment and commitment reciting that defendant was guilty of felonious child abuse inflicting serious bodily injury as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.4(a3), a Class C felony, be corrected to show that defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of felonious child abuse inflicting serious physical injury as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-318.4(a), a Class E felony. We agree -with defendant that this error should be corrected and the State does not oppose a remand to the trial court as to this issue. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to correct this clerical error.\nIV.\nIn summary, we find that the trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charges brought against him and we find no plain error in the admission of testimony. We remand to the trial court only to correct a clerical error.\nNo error; remand to correct clerical error.\nJudges ELMORE and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER,.Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Kimberly Duffley, for the State.", "Cheshire, Parker, Schneider, Bryan & Vitale, by John Keating Wiles, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLOS LEE WILLIAMS\nNo. COA06-1309\n(Filed 3 July 2007)\n1. Child Abuse and Neglect\u2014 felonious abuse-sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of felonious child abuse inflicting serious physical injury where there was sufficient evidence that defendant intentionally inflicted injury that proved to be serious upon a nine-year-old child in his care by beating him multiple times with a belt.\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to object \u2014 not giving instruction\nDefendant waived any objection to the trial court\u2019s failure to inform the jury that it had sustained defendant\u2019s objection to certain testimony where it is not clear that the objection was sustained, defendant did not move to strike, and defendant did not argue plain error. Even if there was error, the testimony was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.\n3. Child Abuse and Neglect \u2014 felonious abuse \u2014 judgment\u2014 correction of clerical error\nA judgment and commitment for felonipus child abuse inflicting serious bodily injury as defined by N.C.G.S. 14-318.4(a3), a Class C felony, was corrected to show that defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of felonious child abuse inflicting serious physical injury as defined by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-318.4(a), a Class E felony.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 26 April 2006 by Judge W. Allen Cobb, Jr. in Wayne County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 April 2007.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Kimberly Duffley, for the State.\nCheshire, Parker, Schneider, Bryan & Vitale, by John Keating Wiles, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0351-01", "first_page_order": 383, "last_page_order": 389 }