{ "id": 12168987, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY PARKS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parks", "decision_date": "2014-06-17", "docket_number": "No. COA13-1283", "first_page": "431", "last_page": "439", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "234 N.C. App. 431" } ], "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": "337 S.E.2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "593" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4715156 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "669 S.E.2d 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 12, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301" }, { "page": "306", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "306" }, { "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "306" }, { "page": "307" }, { "page": "307-308" }, { "page": "308" }, { "page": "304", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4150578 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "730 S.E.2d 816", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "822", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "722 S.E.2d 484", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "365 N.C. 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4153670 ], "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "436", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/365/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "582 S.E.2d 679", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "682", "parenthetical": "holding that \"[although defendant did not raise his double jeopardy argument using those exact words, the substance of the argument was sufficiently presented, and more importantly, addressed by the trial court in finalizing its instructions to the jury\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "159 N.C. App. 103", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8954207 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106", "parenthetical": "holding that \"[although defendant did not raise his double jeopardy argument using those exact words, the substance of the argument was sufficiently presented, and more importantly, addressed by the trial court in finalizing its instructions to the jury\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/159/0103-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-190.19", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-27.4", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 847, "char_count": 20904, "ocr_confidence": 0.725, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.246867481463205 }, "sha256": "2bf7e0ae8184d2d35531d03f40a1e68918b27e752b24003da746216d876b3c96", "simhash": "1:571de25a776e81e4", "word_count": 3516 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:30:06.319137+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER, Robert C., and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY PARKS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCullough, judge.\nDefendant Gregory Kent Parks appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss two counts of participating in the prostitution of a minor. Where the State failed to produce substantial, independent corroborative evidence to support the facts underlying defendant\u2019s extrajudicial statement, in violation of the corpus delicti rule, we reverse defendant\u2019s challenged convictions.\nI. Background\nOn 10 September 2012, defendant was indicted on two counts of first-degree sexual offense in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-27.4 and attaining habitual felon status. On 14 January 2013, defendant was charged by superseding indictment with two counts of participating in the prostitution of a minor in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-190.19(a).\nOn 16 November 2013, Wilson County Superior Court Judge Milton F. Fitch entered an order, sua sponte, which provided the following:\nUpon review, the Court determined that in order to prevent any further delay of the Defendant\u2019s cases and guarantee Defendant\u2019s right to a speedy trial that the SBI laboratory expedite and conduct any and all testing of any materials submitted and held relating to these cases.\nThis Court hereby orders that the N.C. SBI laboratory expedite and perform DNA analysis and any other requested testing on any and all materials submitted to and held by the N.C. SBI Laboratory in these cases; and a laboratory report of the results to these ordered analysis be returned to the submitting parties and to District Attorney's Office of the Seventh Prosecutorial District no later than December 21, 2012.\nPrior to trial, on 1 February 2013, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him for failure by the State to test or properly preserve DNA specimens in his case and for failure to follow a 16 November 2012 order requiring the SBI laboratory to conduct any and all testing of any materials submitted and held relating to defendant\u2019s case. The trial court denied this motion.\nDefendant\u2019s trial commenced at the 4 February 2013 criminal session of Wilson County Superior Court. A.J. testified that on the evening of 15 June 2012, she was at home with her friend, D.T. D.T. was on the phone with defendant. D.T. told A.J. that defendant \u201cwas going to give her some marijuana for free if I walked down there with her, so I walked with her down the street.\u201d Defendant lived \u201cthree houses down, right up the street.\u201d When A.J. and D.T. arrived at defendant\u2019s house, defendant answered the door and said, \u201c[w]ill you come in?\u201d After they walked inside, defendant closed the door behind them. A.J. testified to the following:\nWell, we got in the home, there was an older man [(defendant\u2019s father)] in a wheelchair in there, and he said, \u201cWell, y\u2019all can walk on back here, follow me to my room.\u201d He said, \u201cI\u2019m not going to give you the marijuana out here.\u201d [So] I followed [D.T.] and [defendant] back to his room. And when we got in the bedroom, he pulled out a knife.\nDefendant had closed his bedroom door. Defendant put the knife to AJ.\u2019s neck and said \u201che was going to kill me if I didn\u2019t take my clothes off.... He told both of us to take our clothes off before he killed us.\u201d\nA.J. testified that defendant went into an adjoining bathroom, returned with pills, and told the girls \u201cto take the pills or he was going to kill us.\u201d A.J. took one pill.\nAfter [defendant] got the pills and made us take them, he told us \u2014 well, we were lying on the bed, and he just got on top of us \u2014 on me first, and he started licking me on my vagina, and then he went over to [D.T.], and he started licking on her vagina, and then he told me to just wait until he finished her.\nDefendant went back and forth between A.J. and D.T. until A.J. stabbed him with a scalpel in the head. A.J. testified that she had brought a scalpel from her house and kept it in her coat pocket. After stabbing defendant, A.J. and D.T. ran out of the bedroom and unsuccessfully attempted to exit the house through a locked side door. Defendant\u2019s father was telling defendant \u201cto stop and to let us go and that he was tired of him doing it.\u201d While A.J. and D.T. were standing by the back door, defendant stated, \u201c[w]ell, you made my dad mad, I\u2019m going to kill you[.]\u201d Defendant\u2019s father followed A.J. and D.T. back to the bedroom \u201cto get [our] clothes.\u201d After they put their clothes back on, defendant opened the door and A. J. and D.T. went home.\nA.J. called the police. A.J. initially reported to police that she and D.T. were on their way to McDonald\u2019s when defendant \u201cgrabbed\u201d them, pulled out a knife, forced them to take drugs and pills, and sexually assaulted them. She admitted at trial that when she first spoke with police, she did not \u201ctell the truth at first, because I was afraid that I might get in trouble because I\u2019m going to get some marijuana with a friend.\u201d In addition, A.J. testified that defendant did not solicit sex in exchange for money or marijuana.\nD.T. testified that on the evening of 15 June 2012, she was at A.J.\u2019s house when defendant called her. Defendant said \u201che was going to give [A.J.] a bag of some weed[.]\u201d D.T. testified that there was no agreement between defendant and herself for sex, an exchange of marijuana for sex, or an exchange of money for sex. A.J. and D.T. walked to defendant\u2019s house. Defendant took them into his bedroom. The three sat on his bed and defendant took out pills from his pocket. Defendant then proceeded to pull out a pocketknife and stated, \u201cI\u2019m crazy, I\u2019ve been doing this for years, and y\u2019all \u2014 y\u2019all take off y\u2019all\u2019s clothes now. I ain\u2019t playing with y\u2019all.\u201d D.T. used the bathroom that was adjoined to the bedroom and called the police.\nDefendant forced D.T. and A.J. to take their clothes off and lay on the bed. Defendant put his \u201ctongue in [their] vagina[s].\u201d D.T. grabbed a scalpel from a pocketbook, passed it to A.J., and A.J. stabbed defendant in the back of his head. A.J. and D.T. ran out of the bedroom, but encountered a locked door. Defendant\u2019s father told defendant, \u201cGregory, just let them go, just let them go.\u201d Defendant began shouting, \u201c[d]addy, shut up. Y\u2019all going to make my daddy have a heart attack. You shut up.\u201d Defendant\u2019s father then followed A. J. and D.T. back to defendant\u2019s bedroom and they put on their clothes. Afterward, A.J. and D.T. left defendant\u2019s home, returned to AJ.\u2019s house, and called the police.\nD.T. admitted that she lied in her first statement to the police when she reported the following:\nWell, the first time I told \u2014 I told that we had went \u2014 we was on the way to McDonald\u2019s and he had snatched us up; which, it was a lie. I knew it was a lie when we told y\u2019all that we was going to McDonald\u2019s and stuff and he snatched us up. That ain\u2019t it. It really was that we had went to go do some weed, like, he had called the phone and said he was gonna give us [weed.]\nDetective Michael Thomas Harrell of the Wilson Police Department testified that on the morning of 16 June 2012, defendant gave the following statement to police:\nOn Wednesday, I called [A.J.] for the first time. I see her around the neighborhood and say, \u2018Hey,\u2019 when I see her. She had some drama on Wednesday, so I called her to see what happened. We talked for about an hour before she asked me if I could get any weed. I told her I might could get some weed. She said she would get back up with me on Friday. I tried to call her... She called me back, and I told her I had something for her. She asked if I had any money. I said, \u2018Yeah, I got some money.\u2019 She said she was waiting on her friend. She called me back about three times and asked which house to come to.... [A.J.] asked, and said, \u201cYou are supposed to have something waiting on me.\u201d I said, \u201cWhy, did you bring something?\u201d We went back to my room and I asked what they were working with. They both took their clothes off. [A. J.] asked about the money, again, and I played it off, because I didn\u2019t have much money for them. They told me to get them going, so I was touching on them and eating them out, switching back and forth. When I went back down on [D.T.], [A.J.] hit me in the back of the head, and I said, \u2018What the f***?\u2019 She went for the door. I think she went in the drawer where I had pointed to earlier when I said I got some money. I don\u2019t know if they set me up or not.\nOn 11 February 2012, a jury found defendant guilty of both counts of participating in the prostitution of a minor and not guilty of both charges of first-degree sexual offense.- Defendant pled guilty to having attained habitual felon status. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 127 to 165 months. Defendant appeals.\nII. Discussion\nOn appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by (A) denying his motion to dismiss two counts of participating in the prostitution of a minor based on insufficiency of the evidence and based on a fatal variance between the indictments, jury charge, and proof at trial; (B) admitting evidence in violation of Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence; (C) violating his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (D) denying his motion to dismiss based on a failure to obey a court order to test evidence; and (E) allowing amendment of the superseding indictments.\nA. Motion to Dismiss the Charges of Participating in the Prostitution of a Minor\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges of participating in the prostitution of a minor charges for insufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, defendant contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant \u201cpatronized a minor prostitute.\u201d Defendant argues that the State erroneously relied solely on defendant\u2019s extrajudicial statement to prove his guilt, without providing other corroborating evidence in violation of the corpus delicti rule. We agree.\nBefore reaching the merits of defendant\u2019s arguments, we .address the State\u2019s contention that defendant failed to raise the issue of a violation of the corpus delicti rule at trial and that, as a result, he has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. Pursuant to Rule 10(a)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, we note that in order to preserve an issue for appellate review,\na 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. Rule 10(a)(1) (2013). However, after thoroughly reviewing the transcript of defendant\u2019s trial, we hold that although defense counsel did not use the exact words \u201ccorpus delicti\u201d in arguing that the trial court grant defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charges of promoting the prostitution of a minor based on the insufficiency of the evidence, the substance of the argument was sufficiently presented to the trial court. Accordingly, we proceed to the merits of defendant\u2019s arguments. See State v. Ezell, 159 N.C. App. 103, 106, 582 S.E.2d 679, 682 (2003) (holding that \u201c[although defendant did not raise his double jeopardy argument using those exact words, the substance of the argument was sufficiently presented, and more importantly, addressed by the trial court in finalizing its instructions to the jury\u201d).\nWhen reviewing a defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, this Court determines whether the State presented substantial evidence in support of each element of the charged offense. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate, or would consider necessary to support a particular conclusion.\nState v. Hunt, 365 N.C. 432, 436, 722 S.E.2d 484, 488 (2012) (citation omitted). \u201cThis Court reviews the trial court\u2019s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo and views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State every reasonable inference therefrom, and resolving any contradictions or discrepancies in the State\u2019s favor.\u201d State v. Miles, _ N.C. App. _, _, 730 S.E.2d 816, 822 (2012) (citation omitted).\nIn light of these principles, we consider the elements of the offense of participating in the prostitution of a minor. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-190.19,\n[a] person commits the offense of participating in the prostitution of a minor if he is not a minor and he patronizes a minor prostitute. As used in this section, \u201cpatronizing a minor prostitute\u201d means:\n(1) Soliciting or requesting a minor to participate in prostitution;\n(2) Paying or agreeing to pay a minor, either directly or through the minor\u2019s agent, to participate in prostitution; or\n(3) Paying a minor, or the minor\u2019s agent, for having participated in prostitution, pursuant to a prior agreement.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-190.19 (2011).\nDefendant relies on the North Carolina Supreme Court\u2019s holding in State v. Smith, 362 N.C. 583, 669 S.E.2d 299 (2008). In Smith, the issue before the Court was whether there was substantial corroborating evidence independent of the defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction for first-degree sexual offense. Id. at 585, 669 S.E.2d at 301. The Court noted that in order to find a defendant guilty of first-degree sexual offense, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that\n(1) the defendant engaged in a sexual act with a victim who is under the age of thirteen, and (2) the defendant is at least twelve years old and at least four years older than the victim. A sexual act, as defined by statute, means \u201ccunnilingus, fellatio, analingus, or anal intercourse, but does not include vaginal intercourse. Sexual act also means the penetration, however slight, by any object into the genital or anal opening of another person\u2019s body[.]\u201d Fellatio is defined as \u201cany touching of the male sexual organ by the lips, tongue, or mouth of another person.\u201d\nId. at 592-93, 669 S.E.2d at 306 (citations omitted). The Smith Court stated that \u201c[u]nder the corpus delicti rule, the State may not rely solely on the extrajudicial confession of a defendant, but must produce substantial independent corroborative evidence that supports the facts underlying the confession.\u201d Id. at 588, 669 S.E.2d at 303 (citing State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 337 S.E.2d 487 (1985)).\nThe Smith victim \u201ctwice denied that a first-degree sexual offense ever occurred.\u201d Id. at 593, 669 S.E.2d at 306. In reviewing the defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession, the defendant provided that the victim \u201cunzipped his pants, removed his penis, and attempted fellatio, but that he could not achieve an erection because of his alcohol consumption.\u201d Id. (emphasis in original). The Smith Court stated that taking into consideration the defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession alone, \u201ca jury could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that [the victim\u2019s] mouth ever made contact with [the] defendant\u2019s penis, which is a required element in a sexual offense prosecution.\u201d Id. at 593-94, 669 S.E.2d at 306.\nThe State argued that several pieces of corroborative evidence, along with the defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession, were sufficient under the corpus delicti rule to sustain a conviction for first-degree sexual offense, but the Smith Court disagreed. The State first argued that the defendant\u2019s trial testimony that he felt \u201csomething\u201d touch his penis was strongly corroborative, but the Court held that, \u201c[l]ike the extrajudicial confession, this statement is also vague; it is not clear from the record what this \u2018something\u2019 was.\u201d Id. at 594, 669 S.E.2d at 307. Next, the State argued that defendant\u2019s statement to the victim\u2019s brother that \u201che had let [the victim] give him oral sex\u201d was strongly corroborative. The Smith Court held that the corroborating evidence supporting the defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession must be substantial and independent, and that this statement was not independent because it was derived immediately following defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession elicited by a detective. Id. Lastly, the State argued that several pieces of \u201copportunity evidence\u201d - testimony from both the defendant and the victim that they were alone together in a bedroom as well as testimony from the victim\u2019s brother that he left the victim with the defendant - were sufficient to sustain the defendant\u2019s conviction. The Smith Court held that because \u201cno independent proof, such as physical evidence or witness testimony, of any crime [could] be shown[,]\u201d the opportunity evidence was not strong enough to establish the corpus delicti of first-degree sexual offense. Id. at 595-96, 669 S.E.2d at 307-308. Based on the foregoing, the Smith Court held that the State \u201cha[d] not met its burden [of providing] strong corroboration evidence relevant to the essential facts and circumstances of [the] defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession\u201d and reversed the defendant\u2019s conviction. Id. at 596, 669 S.E.2d at 308.\nSimilar to the facts found in Smith, in the case sub judice, although A.J. and D.T. gave several differing accounts of the events that took place on the evening of 15 June 2012, both A.J. and D.T. testified at trial that defendant did not solicit sex from them in exchange for money or marijuana. Furthermore, we find defendant\u2019s extrajudicial statement regarding an alleged exchange of sex for money or marijuana with A.J. and D.T. to be vague. Defendant\u2019s extrajudicial statement provided the following, in pertinent part:\n[A.J.] asked if I had any money. I said, \u2018Yeah, I got some money.\u2019 She said she was waiting on her friend. She called me back about three times and asked which house to come to. . . . [A.J.] asked, and said, \u201cYou are supposed to have something waiting on me.\u201d I said, \u201cWhy, did you bring something?\u201d We went back to my room and I asked what they were working with. They both took their clothes off. [A.J.] asked about the money, again, and I played it off, because I didn\u2019t have much money for them.\nThe State argues that \u201can agreement to exchange sex for marijuana might be inferred even without Defendant\u2019s statements\u201d and that other independent evidence corroborated defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession. However, after careful review, we are not persuaded. The record is insufficient to strongly corroborate the essential element that defendant patronized a minor prostitute in order to convict defendant of participating in the prostitution of a minor. Because the State did not meet its burden in violation of the corpus delicti rule, we hold that the trial court erred by failing to grant defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we reverse defendant\u2019s conviction of two counts of participating in the prostitution of a minor.\nBased on the disposition of defendant\u2019s first argument, it is unnecessary for us to address his remaining arguments on appeal. .\nReversed.\nJudges HUNTER, Robert C., and GEER concur.\n. Because A.J. and D.T. were minors during the commission of the alleged crimes, both seventeen years old in 15 June 2012, initials are used to protect their identities.\n. We note that, effective 1 October 2013, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-190.19 was repealed by Session Laws 2013-368, s. 4. The current statute is applicable to offenses committed on or after 1 October 2013. However, because the events of this case took place on 15 June 2012, the former statute applies.\n. \u201cThe term corpus delicti literally means \u2018body of the crime.\u2019 \u201d State v. Smith, 362 N.C. 583, 589, 669 S.E.2d 299, 304 (2008) (citations omitted).", "type": "majority", "author": "McCullough, judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph L. Hyde, for the State.", "M. Alexander Chams for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY PARKS\nNo. COA13-1283\nFiled 17 June 2014\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014preservation of issues\u2014failure to raise at trial\u2014substance of article sufficiently presented\nDefendant\u2019s contention regarding the corpus delicti rule was heard on appeal where the exact words were not used at trial, but the substance of the argument was sufficiently presented.\n2. Criminal Law\u2014prostitution of minor\u2014evidence not sufficient\u2014corpus delicti rule\nThe record in a prosecution for participating in the prostitution of a minor was insufficient where the State erroneously relied solely on defendant\u2019s extrajudicial statement to prove his guilt, without providing other corroborating evidence. Although the two victims gave several differing accounts of events, both testified at trial that defendant did not solicit sex from them in exchange for money or marijuana. Furthermore, defendant\u2019s extrajudicial statement regarding an alleged exchange of sex for money or marijuana was vague.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 11 February 2013 by Judge Quentin T. Sumner in Wilson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 March 2014.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph L. Hyde, for the State.\nM. Alexander Chams for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0431-01", "first_page_order": 441, "last_page_order": 449 }