{ "id": 6816466, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE MICHAEL STEEN, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Steen", "decision_date": "2013-04-16", "docket_number": "No. COA12-1069", "first_page": "568", "last_page": "576", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "226 N.C. App. 568" } ], "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": "651 S.E.2d 279", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12639564 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/651/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "560 S.E.2d 141", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220131, 219911, 219981, 219943 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0216-02", "/nc/355/0216-04", "/nc/355/0216-03", "/nc/355/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "554 S.E.2d 413", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "416" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 N.C. App. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9377955 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/147/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "661 S.E.2d 732", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4150926 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 N.C. App. 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8156410 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/186/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 228", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "231" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566356 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "399" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "723 S.E.2d 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "330", "parenthetical": "\"Unpreserved error in criminal cases ... is reviewed only for plain error.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "365 N.C. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4154240 ], "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512", "parenthetical": "\"Unpreserved error in criminal cases ... is reviewed only for plain error.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/365/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "710 S.E.2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2011, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "365 N.C. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2011, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "707 S.E.2d 700", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "705" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N.C. App. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 3822078 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "162" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/210/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E.2d 334", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573534 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "179" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 S.E.2d 617", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "619" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 714", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566706 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "717" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0714-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E.2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" }, { "page": "653" }, { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560587 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "67" }, { "page": "67" }, { "page": "67" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169" }, { "page": "169" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559773 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78-79" }, { "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": 6, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "117" }, { "page": "117" }, { "page": "117" }, { "page": "117" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573434 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" }, { "page": "99" }, { "page": "99" }, { "page": "99" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0095-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 956, "char_count": 22484, "ocr_confidence": 0.699, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.138363859351186e-08, "percentile": 0.4742400039538985 }, "sha256": "94035064ce78bb970bdf257483702c05f65c47f188b6d76c2076c9dc7c00cc03", "simhash": "1:d6091420611b8d7a", "word_count": 3728 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:05:47.059681+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and CALABRIA concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE MICHAEL STEEN, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nDefendant George Michael Steen appeals from a judgment entered upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of two counts of first-degree sexual offense with a child in violation of N.C.G.S.-\u00a7 14-27.4(a)(l), and one count of sexual offense withachild in violation ofN.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.4A(a). We find no error.\nThe evidence presented at trial tendedlo show that M.S. was placed into the custody of the Lincoln County Department of Social Services (\u201cDSS\u201d) on 2 November 2004, after he and his sisters were removed from his mother\u2019s home upon allegations that the children were neglected; M.S. was four years old. Immediately following his removal from his mother\u2019s home, M.S. was placed in the home of then-foster parents defendant and his wife, Jennifer Steen, for twenty-one days. Then, in an effort to reunite M.S. with his sisters, M.S. was removed from defendant\u2019s home and placed in another foster care home with his sisters, where M.S. remained for less than three months before the family determined that it could not \u201chandle\u201d all three children. M.S. was then returned to defendant\u2019s home for about two-and-a-half years until M.S. was removed again and returned to his biological mother for two months in an attempt at reunification. M.S. underwent a series of placements for the next two months, and was then placed for a third time in defendant\u2019s home in December 2007, where M.S. lived until he left for the last time in February 2009, when M.S. was eight years old.\nAccording to April Gullatte, who was M.S.\u2019s DSS foster care social worker from 2004 through September 2009, M.S.\u2019s third placement with defendant ended when M.S. \u201cwas accused of acting out sexually at school, going up under the bathroom stall and trying to touch a child.\u201d After that incident, M.S. was placed in the home of Debra and Mickey Ledford, who were \u201clevel two therapeutic foster parents,\u201d \u201cspecially trained ... to handle certain behavioral issues that children have that are in care.\u201d\nMr. Ledford testified that on one occasion when he was getting the bath water ready for M.S., M.S. asked Mr. Ledford if he could take a shower with him, and Mr. Ledford told M.S. that \u201cbig boys do not do this,\u201d \u201c[w]e don\u2019t shower together.\u201d Then, after M.S. had been living in the Ledford home for some time, Mrs. Ledford testified that she and M.S. were \u201cin the living room watching a Lifetime movie\u201d when M.S. said, \u201c[D]id I ever tell you about the time that [defendant] stuck his penis in my butt[?]\u201d Mrs. Ledford testified that she said \u201cno,\u201d and turned off the television. According to Mrs. Ledford, M.S. told her that \u201cit happened in the shower,\u201d that \u201che done it [sic] quite frequently,\u201d and that \u201c[defendant] would stop\u201d if defendant\u2019s wife would walk into the bathroom, \u201c[b]ut he would start again after she left the room.\u201d\nAt trial, then-eleven-year-old M.S. testified that, while he lived in defendant\u2019s house, defendant would take showers with him once or twice a week, which defendant himself admitted occurred at that frequency. Although defendant testified that the \u201conly time\u201d he took showers with M.S. was \u201cwhen [they] were going somewhere and [they] had to hurry up and get ready so [they] could get going,\u201d M.S. testified that, when defendant took showers with him, defendant did \u201csexual things\u201d to him.\nAccording to M.S., while defendant was in the shower with him, defendant would have M.S. \u201cget down on [his] knees\u201d and defendant would move back and forth and \u201cmak[e] [M.S.] suck his penis,\u201d which M.S. said felt \u201c[w]eird and gooey\u201d and \u201c[l]ike soft\u201d in M.S.\u2019s mouth. M.S. also testified that defendant put his mouth on M.S.\u2019s penis, and that \u201cit just didn\u2019t feel right.\u201d M.S. further testified that defendant \u201csticked [sic] his penis in [M.S.\u2019s] butt,\u201d and described that defendant would put his penis \u201cin between [M.S.\u2019s] butt crack,\u201d so that defendant\u2019s penis touched the part of M.S.\u2019s bottom where the food comes out. M.S. also said that when defendant would stand behind him and put his penis in M.S.\u2019s bottom, M.S. would stand on the sides of the tub and hold onto both the wall and the rod that holds up the shower curtain so that he would not slip and fall in the shower. While defendant was showering with M.S., M.S. said that defendant\u2019s wife would be out of the house or \u201csomewhere in the house,\u201d and said that \u201cshe would open the blinds to see what we were doing but we would always stop then. He would tell me to stop.\u201d Finally, M.S. testified that defendant told M.S. that he would \u201cdo something to [M.S.] if [he] told\u201d about what happened in the shower, \u201csaid he would hurt [M.S.] or get [M.S.] in trouble,\u201d and that M.S. \u201cthought really [defendant] was going to hurt [him].\u201d Additionally, M.S. said that defendant \u201ctold [M.S.] he would tell [defendant\u2019s wife] or someone else that [M.S.] was lying about what [M.S.] said and who believes little kids?\u201d M.S. said he did not tell defendant\u2019s wife because, \u201cI don\u2019t want her to not think I\u2019m telling the truth, which I was telling the truth. They are married, so I don\u2019t want to break them apart and he go to jail....\u201d M.S. said he reported the abuse to the Ledfords after he lived with them and got to know them because, he said, \u201cI could trust them and they \u2014 and I trusted what they said because they said the truth.\u201d\nIn early 2010, Donna Corriher, the DSS social worker who took over M.S.\u2019s case after he began living with the Ledfords, received an e mail from the Ledfords which described the allegations that M.S. reported to them. Upon receiving the e mail, Ms. Corriher filed a report with DSS, which initiated an investigation. Amy Cloninger, a family assessor investigator for Child Protective Services for DSS, was assigned to conduct the investigation into M.S.\u2019s allegations.\nOn 2 February 2010, when M.S. was nine years old, M.S. was interviewed at the Child Advocacy Center, which interview was simultaneously observed through closed-circuit television by Ms. Cloninger, Ms. Corriher, and Detective Dennis Harris from the Lincolnton Police Department. During the interview, M.S. said, \u201cI had sex with that man, [defendant] George Steen,\u201d and when asked what he meant by \u201csex,\u201d M.S. said that defendant \u201cstuck his penis up [his] butt.\u201d M.S. also reiterated his allegations, including that \u201che did oral sex to [defendant] and [defendant] did it to him more than once,\u201d that defendant would make M.S. \u201cstand on the rails\u201d or sides of the tub and \u201cthey would have sex,\u201d and that \u201c [i]t happened in the shower\u201d and \u201cdidn\u2019t happen anywhere else.\u201d M.S. also repeated his allegation that, when defendant\u2019s wife would enter the bathroom, \u201cthey would stop because she might pull back the curtains.\u201d\nColden Quick, a therapist and licensed clinical social worker with Piedmont Family Services, testified that M.S. was referred to his practice for an evaluation after M.S. was involved in an inappropriate sexual contact with another student at school. Mr. Quick was admitted, without objection, as an expert in the field of clinical social work with a specialty in sexual abuse, and testified that M.S. exhibited behaviors that are consistent with children who have experienced sexual abuse. Mr. Quick further opined that it is not normal for a child of M.S.\u2019s age to know about anal stimulation or penetration, or to have opinions about what anal stimulation feels like without having been exposed to it or having experienced it.\nKelly Holland, a therapist and clinical manager at Thompson Child Family Focus, a residential treatment facility for children who have suffered trauma in their past, testified that, about a month into her therapy sessions with M.S., when they were talking about \u201cgood touch, bad touch, secret touch,\u201d M.S. mentioned that \u201csomeone had given him a secret touch and he didn\u2019t want to talk about it.\u201d A couple of sessions later, M.S. told Ms. Holland that defendant \u201chad hurt him\u201d and \u201chad performed oral and anal sex on him and asked [M.S.] to do the same to him,\u201d and that, when defendant\u2019s wife walked in the bathroom that defendant \u201cstopped the sexual abuse and she did whatever she needed to do in the bathroom and left and then it resumed.\u201d Ms. Holland said that the sexual abuse consisted of oral and anal sex and \u201cfondling of [M.S.\u2019s] bottom, chest and legs.\u201d Ms. Holland also testified that M.S. \u201cexpressed quite a bit of fear of [defendant],\u201d and that M.S. said \u201con multiple occasions that he wanted [defendant] to be in jail and he wanted him to stay there\u201d \u201c[b]ecause [defendant] hurt him.\u201d Ms. Holland further testified that, while living in the residential facility beginning in August 2010, M.S. exhibited behaviors that included \u201c[ejxcessive masturbation, poor boundaries with other people, touching of others, both accidental and on purpose\u2014 [in]appropriate ways \u2014 getting too close to other people,\u201d and \u201c[s]ome-times using provocative language.\u201d Ms. Holland testified, without objection, that such behavior is not normal for a seven- to ten-year-old child who has not experienced sexual abuse, and that such behavior is \u201cquite common\u201d with children who have experienced sexual abuse.\nDetective Harris testified that he received a report from DSS in February 2010 alleging that M.S. had been sexually abused by defendant, and recounted the acts constituting that abuse, which allegations were consistent with the testimony offered by each of the State\u2019s prior witnesses at trial. Detective Harris further testified that the report indicated that defendant told M.S. to say that, if anyone found out, that M.S. should say that it was defendant\u2019s brother who perpetrated the abuse.\nWith respect to M.S.\u2019s truthfulness, the Ledfords both testified that M.S. lied or was untruthful on a number of occasions during the time he lived with them. Ms. Corriher, M.S.\u2019s social worker, testified that lying was not an issue with M.S. \u201cany more than other children lie like on an average,\u201d and said that M.S. \u201cmight tell a lie like if he thought he was going to get in trouble and once he was sat down [sic] and talked to about that, he might fess up to it.\u201d Ms. Cloninger, the DSS investigator, testified that, during M.S.\u2019s interview, she observed that M.S. \u201cshowed that he knew the difference between the truth and a lie.\u201d Mr. Quick, M.S.\u2019s therapist, testified that M.S. would tell him that \u201che didn\u2019t want to get anybody in trouble for things that he would say.\u201d Additionally, at trial, M.S. testified that he understood that it was important to tell the truth \u201c[b]ecause if you don\u2019t be honest [sic], then you-then you are not going to be trusted.\u201d When asked, \u201cHow do we know you\u2019re not lying now?,\u201d M.S. answered, \u201cBecause I changed. I know the truth. I tell the truth.\u201d \u201c[T]his is serious right now.\u201d \u201cThat was a while back but now I am completely honest. I need to be honest... [o]r no one would trust me.\u201d\nDefendant was indicted on two counts of first-degree sexual offense with a child and charged upon an information on one count of sexual offense with a child. At trial, defendant moved to dismiss the charges at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and at the close of all of the evidence, which motions were denied. Defendant was found guilty by a jury on each of the charged offenses, and was sentenced to a term of 300 months to 369 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.\nDefendant first contends the trial court erred by denying his motions to dismiss because the State presented insufficient evidence of the charged offenses. After a careful review of defendant\u2019s argument, we find no error with respect to this issue.\n\u201cUpon defendant\u2019s motion for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant\u2019s being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied.\u201d State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980). \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 in considering such motions is concerned only with the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury and not with its weight.\u201d Powell, 299 N.C. at 99, 261 S.E.2d at 117. \u201cThe trial court\u2019s function is to test whether a reasonable inference of the defendant\u2019s guilt of the crime charged may be drawn from the evidence.\u201d Id. \u201cIn so doing the trial court should only be concerned that the evidence is sufficient to get the case to the jury; it should not be concerned with the weight of the evidence.\u201d State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 67, 296 S.E.2d 649, 652 (1982). \u201cThe evidence is 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 . . . .\u201d Powell, 299 N.C. at 99, 261 S.E.2d at 117. \u201c[C]ontradictions and discrepancies are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal; and all of the evidence actually admitted, whether competent or incompetent, which is favorable to the State is to be considered by the court in ruling on the motion.\u201d Id. \u201cThe defendant\u2019s evidence, unless favorable to the State, is not to be taken into consideration.\u201d Earnhardt, 307 N.C. at 67, 296 S.E.2d at 653.\nIn the present case, defendant does not dispute, and the record reflects, that the State presented \u201crelevant evidence\u201d that \u201ca reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion\u201d that defendant was the perpetrator of the charged offenses and that he committed each essential element of those offenses. See Smith, 300 N.C. at 78-79, 265 S.E.2d at 169. \u201cWhat defendant argues as the basis for insufficient evidence in fact goes to the issues of credibility and weight to be given to the evidence.\u201d See State v. Jordan, 321 N.C. 714, 717, 365 S.E.2d 617, 619 (1988). Specifically, defendant argues that the testimony presented by the accusing victim M.S. was not credible \u2014 and thus insufficient\u2014 based on purported contradictions in M.S.\u2019s testimony and discrepancies between M.S.\u2019s testimony and defendant\u2019s witnesses\u2019 testimony. Nevertheless, our courts have long recognized, and defendant himself concedes, that \u201c[t]he credibility of witnesses and the proper weight to be given their testimony must be decided by the jury \u2014 not by the court.\u201d See State v. Orr, 260 N.C. 177, 179, 132 S.E.2d 334, 336 (1963). Since \u201ccontradictions and discrepancies are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal,\u201d see Powell, 299 N.C. at 99, 261 S.E.2d at 117, and \u201c[t]he defendant\u2019s evidence, unless favorable to the State, is not to be taken into consideration,\u201d see Earnhardt, 307 N.C. at 67, 296 S.E.2d at 653, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss the charged offenses.\nWe note that defendant asserts as a sub issue to his first issue on appeal that M.S. was incompetent to testily in accordance -with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 601(b). However, because defendant failed to challenge M.S.\u2019s competence at trial and thus failed to preserve this argument on appeal, see N.C.R. App. R 10(a)(1), and because any contradictions in M.S.\u2019s testimony \u201cmay have been an appropriate subject for cross examination or a jury argument, [but]... in no way alterf] [M.S.\u2019s] competence as a witness,\u201d see State v. Carter, 210 N.C. App. 156, 162, 707 S.E.2d 700, 705 (internal quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 202, 710 S.E.2d 9 (2011), we decline to consider this assertion further.\n' Defendant next challenges testimony from North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (\u201cSBI\u201d) Special Agent Amanda Nosalek, who was called as the State\u2019s last rebuttal witness before the close of all of the evidence.\nDefendant first asserts that the trial court erred by failing to issue a limiting instruction on its own motion for the jury \u201cto disregard any reference to [Special Agent Nosalek\u2019s] role as a polygraph examiner\u201d with the SBI. In support of his assertion, defendant directs this Court\u2019s attention to cases addressing the admissibility of testimony regarding polygraph examinations in North Carolina. However, our review of the entirety of Special Agent Nosalek\u2019s testimony, which occupies four pages of a two-volume, 366 page transcript, shows that her testimony contains no statements or suggestions that she administered a polygraph examination to defendant. When asked to describe her duties with the SBI, Special Agent Nosalek responded that she has worked \u201cas a drug agent, worked drug investigations, criminal investigations, general investigations and in October of 2009, . . . took over as the District Polygraph Examiner.\u201d When asked whether, in addition to performing polygraph examinations, she \u201calso assisted] other agencies in criminal investigations,\u201d Special Agent Nosalek replied, \u201cAbsolutely, as assigned by our District Supervisor.\u201d Finally, when asked whether she \u201cconducted] an interview as part of [her] duties with the SBI\u201d with defendant in February 2010, Special Agent Nosalek testified that she conducted \u201ca standard interview\u201d with defendant. Thus, after reviewing the entire testimony offered by Special Agent Nosalek, we are not persuaded that the trial court\u2019s failure to instruct the jury sua sponte \u201cto disregard any reference to [Special Agent Nosalek\u2019s] role as a polygraph examiner\u201d would have caused the jury, as defendant urges, to \u201chave been left with the impression\u201d that defendant was questioned \u201cas part of a polygraph examination.\u201d Accordingly, we find this argument is without merit.\nDefendant next challenges testimony elicited from Special Agent Nosalek that recounted defendant\u2019s opinions regarding \u201cwhat [defendant] thought should happen to a person who had done something like this to a child\u201d and whether \u201cthat person should get a second chance.\u201d Because defendant challenges this testimony for the first time on appeal, such challenges can only be reviewed for plain error. See State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 512, 723 S.E.2d 326, 330 (2012) (\u201cUnpreserved error in criminal cases ... is reviewed only for plain error.\u201d).\n\u201cIt is well established that the admission of evidence without objection waives prior or subsequent objection to the admission of evidence of a similar character.\u201d State v. Campbell, 296 N.C. 394, 399, 250 S.E.2d 228, 231 (1979). Additionally, \u201c[statements elicited by a defendant on cross-examination are, even if error, invited error, by which a defendant cannot be prejudiced as a matter of law,\u201d State v. Gobal, 186 N.C. App. 308, 319, 651 S.E.2d 279, 287 (2007), aff\u2019d per curiam, 362 N.C. 342, 661 S.E.2d 732 (2008), and \u201ca defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review.\u201d State v. Barber, 147 N.C. App. 69, 74, 554 S.E.2d 413, 416 (2001), supersedeas denied and disc. reviews denied and dismissed as moot, 355 N.C. 216, 560 S.E.2d 141-42 (2002); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1443(c) (2011) (\u201cA defendant is not prejudiced by.. error resulting from his own conduct.\u201d).\nOur review of the transcript reveals that, during cross-examination, defendant testified about the opinions he expressed to Special Agent Nosalek regarding whether he would want the person who hurt M.S. to be punished, whether such a person should be given a second chance, and what he thought should happen to somebody who abused M.S. Because defendant himself offered testimony that is of a similar character to the testimony from Special Agent Nosalek which defendant now challenges by this argument on appeal, we conclude that defendant has waived his right to appellate review of any error that may have resulted from the admission of this challenged testimony from Special Agent Nosalek. Accordingly, we overrule this issue on appeal. Defendant\u2019s challenges to other portions of Special Agent Nosalek\u2019s testimony for which defendant has failed to present argument supported by persuasive or binding legal authority are deemed abandoned. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(a), (b)(6).\nNo error.\nJudges McGEE and CALABRIA concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Laura E. Grumpier, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Massengale & Ozer, by Marilyn G. Ozer, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE MICHAEL STEEN, Defendant\nNo. COA12-1069\nFiled 16 April 2013\n1. Sexual Offenses \u2014 child victim \u2014 motions to dismiss \u2014 sufficiency of evidence \u2014 credibility\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss the charges of first-degree sexual offense and sexual offense with a child. Although defendant argued the minor child victim was not credible, our courts have long recognized, and defendant conceded, that the credibility of witnesses and the proper weight to be given their testimony must be decided by the jury.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to argue at trial\nAlthough defendant contended the minor victim was incompetent to testify in accordance with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C 1, Rule 601(b) in a sexual offenses case, defendant failed to preserve this issue under N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) because he did not challenge the victim\u2019s competence at trial.\n3. Evidence \u2014 testimony\u2014polygraph examinations \u2014 no limiting instruction required\nThe trial court did not err in a sexual offenses case by failing to issue a limiting instruction on its own motion for the jury to disregard any reference to a special agent\u2019s role as a polygraph examiner with the State Bureau of Investigation. The special agent\u2019s testimony contained no statements or suggestions that she administered a polygraph examination to defendant.\n4. Appeal and Error \u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 waiver\u2014admission of similar testimony \u2014 failure to cite authority\nThe trial court did not commit plain error in a sexual offenses case by admitting the challenged testimony from a special agent. Defendant waived his right to appellate review of any error that may have resulted from the admission of this challenged testimony because defendant offered similar testimony. Further, defendant\u2019s challenges to other portions of the special agent\u2019s testimony to which defendant failed to present argument supported by persuasive or binding legal authority were deemed abandoned.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 28 March 2012 by Judge Robert C. Ervin in Lincoln County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 February 2013.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Laura E. Grumpier, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nMassengale & Ozer, by Marilyn G. Ozer, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0568-01", "first_page_order": 578, "last_page_order": 586 }