{ "id": 4181412, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEREMY BRIAN JENNINGS, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jennings", "decision_date": "2011-01-18", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "329", "last_page": "339", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "209 N.C. App. 329" } ], "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": "637 S.E.2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637285 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/637/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 710", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632576, 12632575 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/610/0710-02", "/se2d/610/0710-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3801765, 3804487, 3799722, 12632555, 12632556, 3798897, 12632561, 3803379, 3804087, 3795738, 3799903 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0283-05", "/nc/359/0283-08", "/nc/359/0283-07", "/se2d/610/0375-01", "/se2d/610/0375-02", "/nc/359/0283-04", "/se2d/610/0377-02", "/nc/359/0283-06", "/nc/359/0283-03", "/nc/359/0283-01", "/nc/359/0283-02" ] }, { "cite": "618 S.E.2d 844", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633895 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "848-49" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/618/0844-01" ] }, { "cite": "647 S.E.2d 628", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638968 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "636" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/647/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "636 S.E.2d 813", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637133, 12637134, 12637135 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/636/0813-01", "/se2d/636/0813-02", "/se2d/636/0813-03" ] }, { "cite": "632 S.E.2d 498", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636318 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "507" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/632/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "619 S.E.2d 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634040, 12634041, 12634042 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/619/0854-01", "/se2d/619/0854-02", "/se2d/619/0854-03" ] }, { "cite": "614 S.E.2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633129 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "316" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/614/0313-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3738550 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "695 S.E.2d 823", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "826" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "595 S.E.2d 219", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. App. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8896515 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/164/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 S.E.2d 905", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "911" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566309 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "569" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "572 S.E.2d 825", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "830-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. App. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251314 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/154/0598-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N.C. App. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8353513 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "350-51" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/173/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "990 A.2d 970", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 7291161 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "978" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/990/0970-01" ] }, { "cite": "654 S.E.2d 483", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3738753, 3739910, 3742278, 3743320, 3743699, 3737015, 3743064, 3738972, 3737885 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0697-02", "/nc/361/0697-05", "/nc/361/0697-03", "/nc/361/0697-07", "/nc/361/0697-04", "/nc/361/0697-09", "/nc/361/0697-01", "/nc/361/0697-06", "/nc/361/0697-08" ] }, { "cite": "185 N.C. App. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8208383 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "28" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/185/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 S.E.2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4743860 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "163" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "697 S.E.2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 N.C. 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4152666 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "316" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/364/0313-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3790179, 3789479, 3790731, 3791023, 3787343, 3795793, 3793041, 3794710, 3787542 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0650-08", "/nc/360/0650-09", "/nc/360/0650-02", "/nc/360/0650-06", "/nc/360/0650-03", "/nc/360/0650-01", "/nc/360/0650-07", "/nc/360/0650-05", "/nc/360/0650-04" ] }, { "cite": "178 N.C. App. 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8376280 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "91-92" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/178/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "559 S.E.2d 788", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "789", "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "page": "789" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 219976 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "266-67", "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "426 S.E.2d 692", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "697" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2546948 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "440" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 854", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3794241, 3795978, 3795640, 3794159, 3804820, 3803221, 3797622, 3804214, 3801560, 3797850, 3798013 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0854-03", "/nc/359/0854-06", "/nc/359/0854-05", "/nc/359/0854-11", "/nc/359/0854-09", "/nc/359/0854-08", "/nc/359/0854-07", "/nc/359/0854-01", "/nc/359/0854-04", "/nc/359/0854-02", "/nc/359/0854-10" ] }, { "cite": "170 N.C. App. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9006213 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/170/0584-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1062, "char_count": 23499, "ocr_confidence": 0.746, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.13738754653263568 }, "sha256": "3cc0a8f8f8a72c25c7d75a366e732119bcd368481f1c2404d1dc671c618f9c67", "simhash": "1:823b04a0255578c6", "word_count": 3771 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:47.704823+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEREMY BRIAN JENNINGS, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge.\nDefendant Jeremy Brian Jennings appeals his convictions of three counts of statutory rape, two counts of statutory sex offense, and one count of taking indecent liberties with a minor. After careful review, we find no error.\nFacts\nThe State\u2019s evidence at trial tended to establish the following facts: In the summer of 2006, A.S. (\u201cAnna\u201d) was 14 years old and living with her mother and older sister in Cabarrus County. Defendant, who was 28 at the time, and his wife were neighbors and Anna would see them out in the neighborhood a couple of times a week. Anna\u2019s family was having problems with their computer and asked defendant, who had some computer skills, if he would try to fix it. Defendant took the computer to his house, fixed the problem, and returned it to Anna\u2019s house.\nLater, while Anna was doing homework one night, she received an instant message on the computer from defendant, although she had not given defendant her \u201cscreen name.\u201d Defendant told Anna that he had liked her \u201cfor a while\u201d and asked her to call him that night. When Anna called defendant, she thought it was \u201cweird\u201d because he was an \u201colder guy.\u201d After talking for a while, defendant began describing \u201csexual favors\u201d he wanted Anna to do to him.\nDefendant and Anna began instant messaging or talking on the telephone almost every day and defendant would tell Anna that he loved her, that he wanted her to perform oral sex on him, and that he wanted to have sex with her. One night in January 2007, Anna snuck out of her window after midnight and met defendant at a gas station near her house. Anna got into defendant\u2019s car and he drove to a cul-de-sac and parked. Anna sat on defendant\u2019s lap and they kissed \u201cwith tongue.\u201d After about an hour and a half, defendant thought it was getting late and took Anna back home.\nSometime after 1 February 2007 but before Anna\u2019s 15th birthday (March 2007), defendant told Anna that he was \u201cgoing to Iraq\u201d and that she would not see him again. That night, Anna snuck out of her house late at night and met defendant at the gas station. Defendant drove Anna to his mother\u2019s house in Harrisburg, where he was then living. After watching television in defendant\u2019s room for a while, defendant took off his shirt and Anna\u2019s and started kissing her. Defendant then asked her to \u201cgive him oral sex.\u201d Defendant took his pants off and Anna performed oral sex on him. Defendant next took off Anna\u2019s pants and inserted his tongue and his fingers into her vagina. Defendant then made Anna get on her hands and knees and had sex with her. Afterward, Anna was bleeding and defendant gave Anna a towel to wipe off the blood. Defendant and Anna got dressed and defendant drove her home.\nAfter that night, defendant and Anna continued to instant message and talk on the telephone. Defendant also set up a page on the social networking site MySpace for them to communicate. Defendant labeled the page \u201cPomp Daddy\u201d as a reference to a instance when Anna and. defendant were instant messaging and Anna accidentally called defendant \u201cPomp Daddy\u201d when she intended to type \u201cPimp Daddy.\u201d\nDefendant told Anna that he wanted to have sex with her again. Sometime after Anna\u2019s birthday in March 2007, they met again at the gas station late at night. Defendant was driving a black Chevrolet Tahoe that belonged to his boss, Daniel Phillips. They drove to a construction site, where they parked and kissed for a while. Defendant eventually asked Anna if she wanted to move to the backseat. Defendant put the backseats down and spread out a blanket for them to lie on. Defendant and Anna took off their clothes, performed oral sex on each other, and began having sex. During intercourse, defendant took a photograph of his penis inserted in Anna\u2019s vagina and one of her \u201cvaginal area.\u201d Afterward, defendant and Anna got dressed and he drove her home.\nSometime around June 2007, Anna met defendant and they drove in defendant\u2019s boss\u2019s black SUV to the same construction site. They got into the backseat of the SUV, performed oral sex on each other, and engaged in sexual intercourse.\nDuring the period in which defendant had access to his boss\u2019s black Tahoe, Phillips noticed that often when defendant returned the vehicle, the backseats would be folded down and that there would a blanket or a pillow in the back. On one occasion, while driving to a work site with defendant, Phillips overheard him having a cell phone conversation in which he described doing certain sexual acts with the other person on the phone. After arriving at the job site, instead of getting off the phone to begin working, defendant put the phone on speaker phone so that both he and Phillips could hear the conversation. Phillips was \u201cshocked\u201d when he heard a \u201cyoung girl[\u2019s]\u201d voice on the phone. Phillips, a longtime friend of Anna\u2019s mother\u2019s boyfriend, recognized Anna\u2019s voice and asked defendant if Anna was the girl on the phone. Defendant did not answer the question but had a \u201cgrin on his face like a Cheshire cat.\u201d Defendant later admitted that he was having a \u201crelationship\u201d with Anna and Phillips told him that he needed to end the relationship.\nDefendant stopped communicating with Anna in May 2007, after meeting Jamie Cagle. When defendant stopped responding to her instant messages, texts, and posts on MySpace, Anna eventually called defendant. Defendant handed the phone to Cagle, who told Anna that she was defendant\u2019s girlfriend.\nOn 25 October 2007, Anna was seen by Doctor Carla Jones, complaining of painful urination. When asked by Dr. Jones, Anna denied being sexually active because she did not want to get defendant in trouble. Based on her symptoms and reported history, Anna was diagnosed as having a bladder infection. When the condition recurred in May 2008, Anna became concerned that she had a sexually transmitted disease and told her mother that she had sex with defendant. Anna\u2019s mother immediately took her to the Child Advocacy Center, where Dr. Jones conducted a sexual abuse examination. Anna was diagnosed as having bacterial vaginitis, but the physical examination was normal.\nDefendant was charged with three counts of statutory rape, two counts of statutory sex offense, and one count of taking indecent liberties with minor. Defendant pled not guilty and the case proceeded to trial, where the jury convicted defendant of all charges. The trial court consolidated the indecent liberties charge with one count of statutory rape and sentenced defendant to a presumptive-range term of 240 to 297 months imprisonment. The trial court also consolidated the two remaining statutory rape charges with the two statutory sex offense convictions and sentenced defendant to a consecutive presumptive-range term of 230 to 285 months imprisonment. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court.\nStandard of Review\nDefendant\u2019s arguments on appeal are limited to challenging the admission of certain expert testimony by Dr. Jones, the physician that performed Anna\u2019s sex abuse examination, and by Sergeant Brian Shiele, the police officer, qualified in computer forensics, who examined defendant\u2019s computer. As defendant did not object to either witness\u2019 testimony, defendant\u2019s contention regarding the admissibility of the experts\u2019 testimony is reviewed for plain error. See State v. Goforth, 170 N.C. App. 584, 589, 614 S.E.2d 313, 316 (reviewing admission of expert testimony for plain error where \u201c[defendant neither objected to nor moved to strike th[e] testimony\u201d), cert. denied, 359 N.C. 854, 619 S.E.2d 854 (2005). Under plain error analysis, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating \u201cnot only that there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result.\u201d State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431, 440, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993).\nI\nWith respect to Dr. Jones, she was qualified \u2014 without objection from defendant \u2014 as an expert in family medicine. She testified on direct-examination about the healing process of the vaginal orifice. Using a \u201chair scrunchie,\u201d Dr. Jones illustrated how the vaginal opening in mature females stretches and retracts after they begin \u201cmaking estrogen.\u201d Dr. Jones also showed the jury a time-lapse photographic display of an \u201cobvious [hymen] tear\u201d healing over a four month period to the extent that the tear is no longer visible. Based on her illustrations, Dr. Jones explained that if she performed an initial examination of a child four months after an alleged incident of sexual abuse, she would be unable to conclude \u201cone way or the other\u201d as to whether the child had been sexually abused. The prosecutor then asked Dr. Jones about her examination of Anna:\nQ. Dr. Jones, when [Anna] presents to your office, it is one year after this event.\nA. Yes.\nQ. Is it possible that she could have had a tear or some of these items that yo.u just pointed out, but by the time you get her a year later, it could be gone?\nA. More than possible, probable.\nQ. Is it also possible because she was estrogenized like you talked about with the scrunchie that there wasn\u2019t any injuries at all to begin with?\nA. It is possible.\nQ. That he just didn\u2019t cause any [injury] when he \u2014 if\u2014if he engaged in sexual activity with her?\nA. It\u2019s possible.\nDefendant contends that \u201cDr. Jones\u2019 opinion that it was \u2018probable\u2019 there had been a tear in [Anna]\u2019s hymen was inadmissible expert testimony as it lacked sufficient foundation and constituted impermissible opinion on the credibility of the prosecuting witness.\u201d See generally State v. Stancil, 355 N.C. 266, 266-67, 559 S.E.2d 788, 789 (2002) (per curiam) (\u201cIn a sexual offense prosecution involving a child victim, the trial court should not admit expert opinion that sexual abuse has in fact occurred because, absent physical evidence supporting a diagnosis of sexual abuse, such testimony is an impermissible opinion regarding the victim\u2019s credibility.\u201d (emphasis ommitted)).\nWe read Dr. Jones\u2019 testimony differently than defendant. Viewed in context of her explanation regarding the time frame for the healing of a hymen tear, Dr. Jones testified, not that \u201cit was \u2018probable\u2019 that there had been a tear in [Anna]\u2019s hymen,\u201d as defendant suggests, but, rather, that if there had been a tear in Anna\u2019s hymen as a result of sexual activity with defendant, the tear \u201cprobabl[y]\u201d would have healed by the time she saw Anna, roughly a year after the last alleged incident of sexual abuse. The State\u2019s purpose in presenting Dr. Jones\u2019 testimony was to explain to the jury that the lack of physical findings indicative of sexual abuse did not necessarily establish that Anna was not sexually abused by defendant. This type of testimony is not an impermissible opinion regarding the complainant\u2019s credibility. The trial court, therefore, did not err, much less commit plain error, in admitting Dr. Jones\u2019 testimony.\nEven assuming error, however, defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting from the admission of Dr. Jones\u2019 testimony. At trial, Anna testified in explicit detail about defendant\u2019s kissing her, his performing cunnilingus on Anna at his mother\u2019s house, and his forcing Anna to have sex with him once at his mother\u2019s house and twice at a construction site. In addition to Anna\u2019s testimony, Mr. Phillips, defendant\u2019s boss, testified about overhearing a cell phone conversation between defendant and another person in which defendant discussed engaging in sexual acts with that person. Defendant later told Mr. Phillips that Anna was the other person on the phone and that he was having a \u201crelationship\u201d with her. The State also presented evidence that, in addition to Anna, defendant\u2019s ex-wife and girlfriend were both diagnosed with bacterial vaginitis, a bacteria that, according to Dr. Jones, may be sexually transmitted. Giv\u00e9n this overwhelming evidence, we cannot conclude that, had Dr. Jones\u2019 testimony not been admitted, the jury probably would have reached a different result at trial. See id. at 267, 559 S.E.2d at 789 (\u201cThe overwhelming evidence against defendant leads us to conclude that the error committed did not cause the jury to reach a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached. Accordingly, although the trial court\u2019s admission of the challenged portion of Dr. Prakash\u2019s testimony was error, it did not rise to the level of plain error.\u201d); State v. Brigman, 178 N.C. App. 78, 91-92, 632 S.E.2d 498, 507 (holding error in admission of expert opinion that \u201c \u2018children suffered sexual abuse by [defendant]\u2019 \u201d did not constitute plain error due to \u201coverwhelming\u201d evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt: children \u201cdescribed details of the abuse and identified defendant as their abuser\u201d and defendant\u2019s claims to have sexually abused the children were corroborated by inmate), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 650, 636 S.E.2d 813 (2006).\nII\nDefendant also contends that the trial court committed plain error by admitting the expert testimony of Sergeant Schiele. After being accepted by the trial court as an expert in forensic computer examination, Sergeant Schiele testified that, based on the initial complaint and witness interviews, the police department obtained and executed a search warrant for defendant\u2019s residence, \u201clooking for computer equipment, peripheral devices, [such as] scanners, printers, [and] keyboards,\u201d as well as \u201ccameras, memory cards for cameras, digital versatile disks, compact disks, floppy disks, pretty much anything computer-related . ...\u201d He then stated that, although he was unable to examine two computer hard drives because there was \u201csomething physically wrong\u201d with one of the drives and the other had been \u201cwiped clean,\u201d he had been able to examine five other hard drives, four camera memory cards, and numerous compact discs. Sergeant Schiele reported that he found \u201cnothing illicit,\u201d such as \u201csexually illicit photos or any correspondence between [defendant] and the victim.\u201d\nThe prosecutor then asked Sergeant Schiele a series of four hypothetical questions, which, although not objected to at trial, now form the basis of defendant\u2019s argument on appeal:\nQ. Sergeant Schiele, based on your training and experience, do those who have proof of criminal activity on a computer, do they make attempts to hide it?\nA. Some will make attempts to hide it; yes.\nQ. Based on your training and experience, someone conducting an illegal relationship, [do] you think they would hit \u201csave\u201d to save that conversation?\nA. No.\nQ. Based on your training and experience, was [defendant] given enough time if, hypothetically, he wanted to dispose of things, would that have been enough time to dispose of it?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Based on your experience and training, would someone who set up a site for a young girl put their real statistics for law enforcement to find?\nA. No.\nDefendant argues that Sergeant Schiele\u2019s testimony is \u201cinadmissible expert testimony as it was not based on his expertise in computer forensics, was not helpful to the jury, and constituted impermissible opinion as to [defendant]^ guilt.\u201d\nRule 702 of the Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert testimony, providing in pertinent part: \u201cIf scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion.\u201d N.C. R. Evid. 702(a); State v. Chandler, 364 N.C. 313, 316, 697 S.E.2d 327, 329-30 (2010). Thus, expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702 \u201cwhen it can assist the jury in drawing certain inferences from facts and the expert is better qualified than the jury to draw such inferences.\u201d State v. Evangelista, 319 N.C. 152, 163, 353 S.E.2d 375, 383 (1987). Although the trial court \u201cshould avoid unduly influencing the jury\u2019s ability to draw its own inferences, expert testimony is proper in most facets of human knowledge or experience.\u201d State v. Brockett, 185 N.C. App. 18, 28, 647 S.E.2d 628, 636, disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 697, 654 S.E.2d 483 (2007).\nAs one appellate court has explained, \u201c[i]t is common . . . for experts to testify in criminal cases about the modus operandi of certain types of criminal offenders [and] [c]ourts generally permit such expert testimony because jurors cannot be presumed to have knowledge of these matters, and it therefore may help the jury understand and evaluate the evidence.\u201d Jones v. United States, 990 A.2d 970, 978 (D.C. 2010). Pertinent here, this Court has held that law enforcement officers may properly testify as experts about the practices criminals use in concealing their identity or criminal activity. See State v. Alderson, 173 N.C. App. 344, 350-51, 618 S.E.2d 844, 848-49 (2005) (holding trial court properly permitted SBI agent to \u201cgive her opinion as to why the seizure of defendant\u2019s police frequency book was important, testifying that finding a police frequency book and a radio scanner can indicate those acting illegally may have a \u2018jump-start\u2019 if they know which police frequencies to monitor.\u201d); State v. White, 154 N.C. App. 598, 604, 572 S.E.2d 825, 830-31 (2002) (\u201cLieutenant Wood had \u2018training, and various courses and experience in working certain cases which led him to conclude that \u2018there are times that the significance of an object such as a pillow or a cloth being placed over somebody\u2019s face can mean in a case that the perpetrator knew the victim and did not want to see their face or have their face appear either before, during, or after the crime.\u2019 Since Lieutenant Wood testified in the form of an opinion based on his expertise, and the testimony was likely to assist the jury making an inference from the circumstances of the crime, the trial court properly admitted the testimony.\u201d).\nPrior to being admitted as an expert in computer forensics, Sergeant Schiele described his specialized training and experience, which included, among other things, training in computer hardware fundamentals, computer forensics, advance data recovery and analysis, computer network forensics, and cell phone forensics. He also indicated that he had performed \u201cprobably around a hundred exams.\u201d Consequently, because of his training and experience in computer forensics, Sergeant Schiele was \u201cin a better position to have an opinion on the subject than [wa]s the trier of fact.\u201d State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 559, 569, 247 S.E.2d 905, 911 (1978).\nDefendant nonetheless contends that Sergeant Schiele\u2019s testimony impermissibly exceeded the scope of his expertise in computer forensic examination because he found \u201cnothing incriminating.\u201d Similar to Dr. Jones\u2019 testimony, the State elicited the challenged testimony from Sergeant Schiele to explain why, despite Anna\u2019s testifying that she and defendant routinely communicated through instant messaging and their MySpace web page and that defendant took digital photographs of her vaginal area during sex, no evidence of these communications or photographs were recovered from defendant\u2019s computer equipment, camera, or storage devices. As Sergeant Schiele\u2019s expertise included training in areas such as \u201cadvance data recovery and analysis,\u201d \u201ccyber crime investigation,\u201d and \u201con-line crime scene investigation,\u201d his testimony addressing how a person might hide or destroy incriminating information on a computer or provide false personal information in order to avoid detection was within the scope of his expertise.\nDefendant also argues that Sergeant Schiele\u2019s testimony \u201cconstituted [an] improper opinion on [defendant\u2019s] guilt.\u201d While defendant is correct that \u201claw enforcement officers [should not be permitted] to provide their opinions regarding [a] defendant\u2019s guilt,\u201d State v. Carrillo, 164 N.C. App. 204, 211, 595 S.E.2d 219, 224 (2004), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 283, 610 S.E.2d 710 (2005), Sergeant Schiele\u2019s testimony did not \u201cimpermissibly invade[] the province of the jury\u201d by \u201cdrfawing] an inference about the defendant\u2019s guilt\u201d from the evidence, State v. Owens, N.C. App. \u2014, \u2014, 695 S.E.2d 823, 826 (concluding detective\u2019s testimony that police \u201cconsidered\u201d tools found on defendant to be \u201chouse breaking tools\u201d was not an expression of opinion as to defendant\u2019s guilt), cert. denied, - N.C. -, \u2014 S.E.2d - (2010).\nIn any event, assuming that the trial court erred in admitting the challenged portions of Sergeant Schiele\u2019s testimony, defendant has failed to demonstrate that \u201cthe jury would probably have reached a different verdict if this testimony had not been admitted.\u201d State v. Hammett, 361 N.C. 92, 98, 637 S.E.2d 518, 522 (2006). As we concluded in addressing Dr. Jones\u2019 testimony, the State presented overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt in the form of Anna\u2019s detailed description of the sexual acts committed by defendant, defendant\u2019s boss\u2019 testimony concerning the cell phone conversation between defendant and Anna in which defendant described performing sexual acts with her and defendant\u2019s admission to having a relationship with Anna, as well as evidence that Anna, defendant\u2019s ex-wife, and his girlfriend were all diagnosed with the same sexually transmitted bacterial infection.\nIn addition to that evidence, Sergeant Schiele testified that the subscriber information for the \u201cPomp Daddy\u201d MySpace web page indicated that the account was created by someone with the email address \u201chondacrzy@yahoo.com.\u201d On cross-examination, defendant admitted to creating hondacrzy@yahoo.com as his personal email account. Defendant\u2019s admission corroborates Anna\u2019s testimony that she and defendant communicated during their \u201crelationship\u201d through the use of a MySpace web page created by defendant. Thus, assuming that the trial court erred in admitting Sergeant Schiele\u2019s answers to the prosecutor\u2019s hypothetical questions, we conclude that the error did not have a probable impact on the jury\u2019s verdict.\nNo Error.\nJudges CALABRIA and GEER concur.\n. The pseudonym \u201cAnna\u201d is used throughout this opinion to protect the minor\u2019s privacy and for ease of reading.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Jacqueline M. Perez, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Emily H. Davis, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEREMY BRIAN JENNINGS, Defendant\nNo. COA10-503\n(Filed 18 January 2011)\n1. Evidence\u2014 physician\u2019s testimony \u2014 explanation of lack of physical evidence\nThere was no plain error in a prosecution for statutory rape and related offenses in a physician testifying that it was probable that a tear in the victim\u2019s hymen would have healed by the time she saw the victim. This was not an impermissible opinion about the victim\u2019s credibility, but an explanation of the lack of physical findings indicating sexual abuse. Moreover, the evidence against defendant was overwhelming.\n2. Evidence\u2014 forensic computer expert \u2014 disposal of evidence\nThere was no plain error in a prosecution for statutory rape and related offenses in allowing the State\u2019s forensic computer expert, who had found nothing illicit in his examination of defendant\u2019s computer equipment, to answer hypothetical questions about disposing of or hiding evidence. The testimony was in the scope of his expertise and did not invade the province of the jury. Moreover, the evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt was overwhelming.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 8 October 2009 by Judge Tanya T. Wallace in Cabarrus'County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 October 2010.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Jacqueline M. Perez, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Emily H. Davis, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0329-01", "first_page_order": 339, "last_page_order": 349 }