{
  "id": 4156684,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF J.J.D.L.",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re J.J.D.L.",
  "decision_date": "2008-04-15",
  "docket_number": "No. COA07-839",
  "first_page": "777",
  "last_page": "783",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 N.C. App. 777"
    }
  ],
  "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": "475 S.E.2d 242",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N.C. App. 753",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11915421
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "761"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/123/0753-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "581 S.E.2d 448",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "450",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N.C. App. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9187410
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "496",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/157/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.26",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-27.4",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 670,
    "char_count": 15641,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.13537970746557038
    },
    "sha256": "adac14f3ca0f5cd6884287fa8dbba387d1f2055f523fa032d640ca51db1d75f7",
    "simhash": "1:e32a05477bf0b7d0",
    "word_count": 2468
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:52.494477+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges HUNTER and JACKSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF J.J.D.L."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nDefendant J.J.D.L., a juvenile, appeals from the trial court\u2019s adjudication and disposition for first degree sex offenses with a child under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-27.4(a)(l).\nOn 23 June 2006, the mother of T.B.M. filed a juvenile petition against defendant for sexual offenses against her son. The first petition alleged indecent liberties between children and three additional petitions alleged three separate counts of first degree sex offense. Evidence submitted during an adjudicatory hearing to determine delinquency tended to show the offenses occurred when defendant was fourteen years old and the victim, T.B.M., was seven years old.\nDuring the hearing, T.B.M. identified defendant in the courtroom and testified that \u201c[defendant] stuck his pee worm in [T.B.M.\u2019s] butt hole.\u201d T.B.M. acknowledged that he referred to a penis as a \u201cpee worm\u201d or \u201cpee bug.\u201d T.B.M. testified-that defendant did this on five different occasions, all of which occurred in defendant\u2019s bedroom or in a bathtub. T.B.M. testified that defendant used lotion to lubricate himself, and when defendant anally penetrated him in the shower, defendant used soap. T.B.M. testified that each experience was painful.\nT.B.M.\u2019s mother testified that one day T.B.M. told her he did not want to go back to his grandmother\u2019s house and when questioned related the above events as the reason why. Defendant\u2019s grandfather was married to T.B.M.\u2019s grandmother and defendant had a room at their house. T.B.M.\u2019s mother filed a report with the Robeson County Sheriff\u2019s Department. Sergeant Sue Lutz with the Juvenile Division was assigned to investigate.\nDuring the investigation Sgt. Lutz interviewed defendant with his mother present. Sgt. Lutz read defendant his juvenile rights warning and both defendant and his mother signed to indicate they understood defendant\u2019s rights. Defendant talked to Sgt. Lutz, and although defendant never signed a statement, at the juvenile delinquency hearing Sgt. Lutz testified, over defendant\u2019s objection, to the content of their conversation. Sgt. Lutz stated defendant acknowledged three occasions during which, though he denied penetration, defendant admitted that he either soaped or lotioned his penis, stuck it between the victim\u2019s \u201cbutt cheeks and humped him.\u201d Sgt. Lutz also testified to defendant\u2019s acknowledgment of a fourth occasion when another boy named Johnny was present. Though defendant admitted to mastur.bating in the presence of T.B.M. and Johnny, defendant denied performing any sexual act on T.B.M. at that time. Sgt. Lutz testified that according to defendant all of these events occurred in defendant\u2019s room or in a shower in T.B.M.\u2019s grandmother\u2019s house.\nDuring the course of the investigation, Sgt. Lutz and T.B.M.\u2019s mother accompanied T.B.M. when he was examined by Dr. Howard Loughlin, a Board Certified Pediatrician practicing in Fayetteville, North Carolina at Southern Regional AHEC as the Medic\u00e1l Director of the Child Abuse Evaluation Clinic. At that time, Dr. Loughlin spoke to Sgt. Lutz, T.B.M.\u2019s mother, and T.B.M. At the adjudication hearing, Dr. Loughlin testified without objection that T.B.M.\u2019s mother informed him T.B.M.\u2019s school performance had gotten \u201cmuch worse,\u201d at times he was \u201cmuch more moody,\u201d and T.B.M. had started having accidents where he urinated and defecated on himself.\nDr. Loughlin testified that he examined T.B.M. on two occasions \u2014 27 April and 19 May 2006, for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of alleged sexual abuse. Dr. Loughlin noted that T.B.M.\u2019s anus was much larger than he was accustomed to seeing on physical exams. Dr. Loughlin testified that on a typical child T.B.M.\u2019s age, the anal opening would be closed with perhaps a minimal, if any, opening. T.B.M.\u2019s anal opening measured one and a half by two centimeters. Dr. Loughlin testified that in terms of the victim\u2019s anal dilation this was the most striking exam he had seen in twelve years.\nDuring the examination, T.B.M. related to Dr. Loughlin those events that occurred at his grandmother\u2019s house, and Dr. Loughlin asked T.B.M. if anyone besides defendant participated. At the adjudicatory hearing, Dr. Loughlin testified, without objection, that T.B.M. mentioned the name of another boy, Johnny. Dr. Loughlin further testified that T.B.M.\u2019s behavior and the disclosures of the physical exam were consistent with those of children who ' had been sexually abused, anally sodomized.\nAt the adjudicatory hearing, Johnny, fourteen years old at the time of trial and another grandchild of T.B.M.\u2019s grandmother, testified to an incident that occurred one day when he was out from school for a week. Johnny testified that he, defendant, and T.B.M. were at their grandmother\u2019s house watching a movie in defendant\u2019s bedroom. At some point, defendant pulled his pants down, began masturbating, and encouraged Johnny to join him. Johnny testified that Defendant asked T.B.M. if defendant could \u201cclean [T.B.M.] out\u201d? To which, T.B.M. responded no, saying it burned the last time. Johnny testified defendant urged T.B.M. to cooperate three times before relenting.\nOn 22 January 2007, the trial court entered a written adjudication order adjudicating defendant delinquent as to three counts of first degree sex offense under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.4(a)(l) and dismissing the charge of indecent liberties. In addition, the trial court ordered that defendant submit to a sex offender specific evaluation and not be around T.B.M. or around children without supervision. The trial court scheduled a disposition hearing for 13 March 2007. At the hearing, the trial court, despite the lack of a sex offender specific evaluation, ordered defendant committed to the Youth Development Center of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency for an indefinite commitment not to exceed defendant\u2019s eighteenth birthday, absent an extension; to submit and comply with any sex offender specific evaluation and its recommendations; have no contact with the victim; and register as a sex offender pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.26.\nOn 14 March 2007, defendant filed a notice of appeal and made a motion for release from custody pending appeal. On 19 March 2007, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion for release.\nOn appeal, defendant raises three issues: whether the trial court erred by (I) denying defendant\u2019s motion for release pending appeal, (II) allowing Sgt. Lutz to testify about statements made by defendant that were against defendant\u2019s interests, and (III) proceeding with the disposition hearing in the absence of a sex offender specific evaluation report.\nI\nDefendant first questions whether the trial court erred by denying defendant\u2019s release pending appeal. Defendant argues the trial court stated no reason for denying defendant\u2019s release and that the order should be reversed as a matter of law. We disagree.\nUnder North Carolina General Statute 7B-2605,\n[p] ending disposition of an appeal, the release of the juvenile, with or without conditions, should issue in every case unless the court orders otherwise. For compelling reasons which must be stated in writing, the court may enter a temporary order affecting the custody or placement of the juvenile as the court finds to be in the best interests of the juvenile or the State.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2605 (2007).\nHere, the trial court ordered defendant committed to the Youth Development Center of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency for an indefinite commitment to last for a minimum of six months and a maximum term to end on defendant\u2019s eighteenth birthday. The record also contains the trial court\u2019s form for appellate entries in a delinquency proceeding, which includes the denial of defendant\u2019s motion to be released pending appeal pursuant to G.S. 7B-2605. On the form, the trial court stated the following as the compelling reason defendant\u2019s motion for release was denied: \u201cfirst degree sex offenses with a child 14-27.4(a)(l).\u201d\nUnder North Carolina General Statute 14-27.4(a)(l),\n[a] person is guilty of a sexual offense in the first degree if the person engages in a sexual act. . . [w]ith a victim who is a child under the age of 13 years and the defendant is at least 12 years old and is at least four years older than the victim.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-27.4(a)(l) (2007).\nGiven that defendant does not challenge the trial court\u2019s findings of fact that defendant \u201cdid engage in a sex offense with [T.B.M.], a child under the age of 13 years, who was at least four years younger than [defendant] and [defendant] was at least twelve years old, being offenses in violation of G.S. 14-27.4(A)(1),\u201d we cannot hold the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to be released pending appeal was unsupported or manifestly without reason.\nAccordingly, defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\n' II\nDefendant next questions whether the trial court erred in admitting Sgt. Lutz\u2019s summary of defendant\u2019s statement. Defendant argues the State failed to establish Sgt. Lutz\u2019s summary constituted an accurate account of defendant\u2019s statement and the document constituted hearsay falling within no exception. We disagree.\nUnder North Carolina Rules of Evidence, Rule 801(c), \u201c \u2018Hearsay\u2019 is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted,\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-801(c) (2007), and \u201c[h]earsay is not admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-802 (2007). Under N.C.G.S. 8C-801(d), titled \u201cException for Admissions by a Party-Opponent,\u201d \u201c[a] statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party and it is ... his own statement, in either his individual or a representative capacity.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-801(d) (2007). \u201cAn admission is a statement of pertinent facts which, in light of other evidence, is incriminating.\u201d State v. Smith, 157 N.C. App. 493, 496, 581 S.E.2d 448, 450 (2003) (citation omitted).\nIn the North Carolina General Statutes, under Juvenile Code section 7B-2407, titled \u201cWhen admissions by juvenile may be accepted,\u201d \u201c[t]he court shall determine whether there were any prior discussions involving admissions . . . [and] [t]he court may accept an admission from a juvenile only after determining that the admission is a product of informed choice.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-2407 (b) (2007).\nHere, the evidence presented during the adjudicatory hearing showed that during the investigation, Sgt. Lutz interviewed defendant, with his mother present. Sgt. Lutz testified that, at the time of the interview, defendant was not in custody; Sgt. Lutz read defendant his Juvenile Rights Warning, after which both defendant and his mother signed a statement indicating they understood the rights; and after defendant and his mother left, Sgt. Lutz wrote her summary of the interview. Sgt. Lutz\u2019s summary of defendant\u2019s statements during the interview were not admitted during the delinquency proceeding.\nSgt. Lutz then testified to defendant\u2019s admission that on at least three different occasions he used T.B.M.\u2019s body for sexual gratification, though he denied penetrating T.B.M. Sgt. Lutz testified to defendant\u2019s statements regarding one incident involving both T.B.M. and another boy named Johnny, though in that situation defendant denied assaulting T.B.M. Sgt. Lutz testified to defendant\u2019s statements that all of these incidents occurred in defendant\u2019s room or in a shower.\nWe hold Sgt. Lutz\u2019s testimony was admissible under both Rule of Evidence, Rule 801(d), allowing admissions by a defendant, and General Statute 7B-2407, governing when admissions by a juvenile may be accepted. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nIII\nLast, defendant questions whether the trial court erred in conducting the dispositional hearing without the results of a court ordered sex offender evaluation. Defendant argues that in the absence of such a report, the public safety issues or the defendant\u2019s need for treatment could not be properly assessed.\nUnder North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 10(b)(1)\nIn order to 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. It is also necessary for the complaining party to obtain a ruling upon the party\u2019s request, objection or motion.\nN.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (2007).\nHere, even acknowledging the informality allowed in a dispositional hearing, see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2501(a) (\u201c[t]he dispositional hearing may be informal. . .\u201d), the record gives no indication defendant contested the continuance of the dispositional hearing on the grounds that a sex offender specific evaluation was unavailable. As \u201c[t]his Court will not consider arguments based upon matters not presented to, or adjudicated by the trial tribunalf,]\u201d State v. Hairston, 123 N.C. App. 753, 761, 475 S.E.2d 242, 247 (1996), defendant is procedurally barred from asserting this argument.\nMoreover, on appeal, defendant fails to argue how the absence of a sex offender specific evaluation hindered the trial court\u2019s ability to properly sentence him. The trial court adjudicated defendant delinquent based on the commission of a B1 felony, first degree sex offenses with a child under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.4(a)(l), (b) (2007). This is categorized as a \u201cviolent offense.\u201d See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(a)(l). In addition to commitment to the Youth Development Center of the Department of Juvenile Justice, the trial court ordered defendant to submit to and comply with any sex offender specific evaluations and its recommendations.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER and JACKSON concur.\n. \u201cJohnny\u201d is a pseudonym used in place of juvenile\u2019s real name.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRYANT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Lauren M. Clemmons, for the State.",
      "So fie Hosfordfor defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF J.J.D.L.\nNo. COA07-839\n(Filed 15 April 2008)\n1. Juveniles\u2014 first-degree sexual offense against child\u2014 release pending appeal \u2014 denied\nThe trial court\u2019s decision to deny release to a juvenile pending appeal was not unsupported or manifestly without reason where the trial court found that juvenile committed first-degree sexual offense against a 13-year-old child in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.4(a)(l).\n2. Evidence\u2014 summary of juvenile\u2019s statement \u2014 admissible\nThe trial court did not erred by admitting an officer\u2019s summary of defendant\u2019s statement in a proceeding against a juvenile for first-degree sexual offense. The evidence was admissible under both N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 801(d), as an admission, and under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2497, governing admissions by a juvenile.\n3. Appeal and Error\u2014 record on appeal \u2014 matter not raised at trial or adjudicated by trial court \u2014 procedurally barred\nDefendant was procedurally barred from raising on appeal the question of whether the trial court erred by conducting a juvenile dispositional hearing without the results of a court ordered sex offender evaluation. The record gives no indication that defendant contested the holding of the dispositional hearing on the ground that a sex offender specific evaluation was unavailable. Moreover, defendant did not argue on appeal how the absence of a sex offender specific evaluation hindered the court\u2019s ability to properly sentence him.\nAppeal by defendant from disposition and commitment entered 13 March 2007 by Judge Jeffrey Moore in Robeson County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 January 2008.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Lauren M. Clemmons, for the State.\nSo fie Hosfordfor defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0777-01",
  "first_page_order": 809,
  "last_page_order": 815
}