{
  "id": 8525371,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM GLENN BRUCE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bruce",
  "decision_date": "1988-06-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 8827SC51",
  "first_page": "547",
  "last_page": "553",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 N.C. App. 547"
    }
  ],
  "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": "356 S.E. 2d 791",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 675",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4739407,
        4739670,
        4745974,
        4746910,
        4740191
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0675-01",
        "/nc/319/0675-05",
        "/nc/319/0675-02",
        "/nc/319/0675-04",
        "/nc/319/0675-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 S.E. 2d 299",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "301"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.C. App. 616",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8359118
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "618"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/83/0616-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 S.E. 2d 741",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "747"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4685694
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "471"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 375",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "378-79"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 655",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565416
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0655-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 S.E. 2d 74",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.C. App. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523457
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/77/0454-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "352 S.E. 2d 673",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4741158
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0034-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 S.E. 2d 78",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "79"
        },
        {
          "page": "79"
        },
        {
          "page": "79"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.C. App. 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523420
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/77/0453-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 S.E. 2d 592",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.C. 507",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574100
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/303/0507-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 530",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "532"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547263
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0174-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 553,
    "char_count": 14113,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.77,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6961105068609916e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8280280047215108
    },
    "sha256": "352295b3d45a0b213566b2a620f3a946e102a42e2dc460d70eac2d4ffa20b3fa",
    "simhash": "1:c7ab45221e6202fe",
    "word_count": 2365
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:12.261630+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Johnson and COZORT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM GLENN BRUCE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nOn appeal, defendant raises three questions for review by this Court: (i) whether the trial judge erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of felonious sexual activity by a substitute parent; (ii) whether the trial judge erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of taking indecent liberties with a child; and (iii) whether the trial judge erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to sever for trial the indecent liberties offense. We shall address these issues seriatim.\nIn his first argument, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of sexual acts by a substitute parent because there was a fatal variance between the underlying offense specified in the indictment and the sexual activity proved at trial. We agree with this contention.\nGeneral Statute 14-27.7 provides the following in relevant part:\nIf a defendant who has assumed the position of a parent in the home of a minor victim engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with a victim who is a minor residing in the home . . . the defendant is guilty of a Class G felony.\nThe indictment charging defendant with violation of G.S. 14-27.7 indicated that the charge was based on defendant\u2019s having engaged in vaginal intercourse with the victim. At trial, the State\u2019s evidence tended to show attempted rape, attempted anal intercourse, and fellatio; the State failed to present any evidence of vaginal penetration. As a result, the trial judge granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the first degree rape charge at the close of the State\u2019s evidence. The judge refused, however, to dismiss the charge based on G.S. 14-27.7, and, in his charge to the jury, the judge instructed that the offense of engaging in a sexual act by a substitute parent in this case was based on the sexual act of fellatio.\nWhile a conviction for the offense defined by G.S. 14-27.7 may be based upon either vaginal intercourse or a sexual act, and while fellatio is a \u201csexual act\u201d within the definition of that term in G.S. 14-27.1(4), the rule is that a defendant must be convicted, if he is convicted at all, of the particular offense with which he has been charged in the bill of indictment. State v. Muskelly, 6 N.C. App. 174, 176, 169 S.E. 2d 530, 532 (1969). Where the evidence tends to show the commission of an offense not charged in the indictment, the defendant\u2019s conviction thereof cannot stand. State v. Williams, 303 N.C. 507, 279 S.E. 2d 592 (1981).\nThis Court addressed similar facts in State v. Loudner, 77 N.C. App. 453, 335 S.E. 2d 78 (1985). In Loudner, the indictment charging defendant with a violation of G.S. 14-27.7 specifically stated that the sexual act was \u201c \u2018performing oral sex.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 453, 335 S.E. 2d at 79. In its answer to defendant\u2019s request for a bill of particulars, the State specified that the sexual acts allegedly committed by defendant were \u201c \u2018physical touching and oral sex.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 454, 335 S.E. 2d at 79. At trial, the State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant placed his finger in the victim's vagina. Id. at 453, 335 S.E. 2d at 79. Because there was no evidence presented showing that defendant performed oral sex with the victim as charged and because \u201cphysical touching\u201d is not a prohibited sexual act within the definition of G.S. 14-27.1(4), this Court held that the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict. Id.\nIn the case before us, defendant was charged with engaging in vaginal intercourse with a minor over whom he had assumed the position of a parent in the home. The State\u2019s evidence failed to show an essential element of that offense, vaginal intercourse. While the evidence presented would support the trial court\u2019s charge of engaging in the sexual act of fellatio with a minor over whom defendant had assumed the position of a parent in the home, defendant was never charged with that offense. For these reasons, we reverse defendant\u2019s conviction for engaging in a sexual act by a substitute parent.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indecent liberties charge. Specifically, defendant argues that the State failed to show that defendant acted \u201c \u2018for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire\u2019 \u201d as required by G.S. 14-202.1(a)(l). Defendant also argues that the court below erred in failing to specify to the jury which of defendant\u2019s alleged acts was to support the indecent liberties conviction and the date the act occurred. We disagree with these contentions.\nGeneral Statute 14-202.1(a)(l) provides the following:\n(a) A person is guilty of taking indecent liberties with children if, being 16 years of age or more and at least five years older than the child in question, he either:\n(1) Willfully takes or attempts to take any immoral, improper, or indecent liberties with any child of either sex under the age of 16 years for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire ....\nAt trial, the victim testified that she and defendant were alone in the family\u2019s mobile home on the afternoon of 12 February 1986 when she and defendant \u201cstarted picking at each other . . . just playing.\u201d The victim stated, \u201c[defendant] went up and under my blouse and he was \u2014 he started rubbing me.\u201d The victim also testified that before she and defendant went into the bedroom, defendant went into the kitchen and locked the back screen door. She stated that defendant stopped rubbing her when her brother attempted to enter the locked back door.\nFrom this evidence, the jury could properly infer that defendant\u2019s action in rubbing the victim\u2019s breasts was for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire. See State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 352 S.E. 2d 673 (1987); State v. Strickland, 77 N.C. App. 454, 335 S.E. 2d 74 (1985).\nAs to defendant\u2019s second argument, we first note that defendant failed to object to that which he now assigns as error. As such, in the absence of plain error, which is not argued in defendant\u2019s brief, defendant may not now assign error to an error or omission in the jury charge. N.C. Rule App. Proc. 10(b)(2). See State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 300 S.E. 2d 375 (1983). In his instruction to the jury, the trial judge indicated that the date of the alleged taking of indecent liberties with a minor child was the date shown on the indictment; the indictment clearly stated that 12 February 1986 was the date of the alleged offense. Considering the entire record, we are of the opinion the asserted error in the instruction would not have had a probable impact on the jury\u2019s finding of guilt. See id. at 661, 300 S.E. 2d at 378-79.\nDefendant\u2019s final contention is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever for separate trial the charge of indecent liberties based on events that allegedly took place on 12 February 1986. This contention is without merit.\nGeneral Statute 15A-926(a) provides the following in part:\nTwo or more offenses may be joined in one pleading or for trial when the offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are based on the same act or transaction or on a series of acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.\nA trial court\u2019s ruling on consolidation or severance of cases is discretionary and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Hayes, 314 N.C. 460, 471, 334 S.E. 2d 741, 747 (1985). \u201cA trial court may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d Id.\nIn the present case, all four charges involve acts of sexual abuse by defendant upon the same victim in the same location, the bedroom of the mobile home shared by defendant and the victim\u2019s mother. Each of the alleged acts occurred when defendant was alone with the victim in the mobile home. Under these facts, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to sever for separate trial the indecent liberties case, even though it was based upon acts that allegedly occurred more than six months after the alleged acts underlying the remaining three charges. Moreover, where trials involve child witnesses testifying about sexual abuse, public policy favors consolidation of cases because it avoids the necessity of having the child testify more than once. State v. Jenkins, 83 N.C. App. 616, 618, 351 S.E. 2d 299, 301 (1986), cert. denied, 319 N.C. 675, 356 S.E. 2d 791 (1987).\nTherefore, for the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court\u2019s judgment as to the crime of engaging in a sexual act by a substitute parent; as to the remainder of the convictions, we find no error.\n86CRS27515, no error.\n86CRS27516, no error.\n87CRS6459, reversed.\n87CRS6460, no error.\nJudges Johnson and COZORT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Daniel C. Oakley, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Malcolm Bay Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Mark D. Montgomery, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM GLENN BRUCE\nNo. 8827SC51\n(Filed 21 June 1988)\n1. Rape and Allied Offenses 8 5\u2014 sexual act by substitute parent \u2014 fatal variance between indictment and evidence\nDefendant\u2019s conviction for engaging in a sexual act by a substitute parent was reversed where defendant was charged with engaging in vaginal intercourse with a minor over whom he had assumed the position of a parent in the home, and, while the evidence presented would have supported engaging in the sexual act of fellatio, the evidence failed to show vaginal intercourse. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.7.\n2. Rape and Allied Offenses 8 19\u2014 taking indecent liberties \u2014 purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a minor by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss where the jury could properly infer that defendant\u2019s action in rubbing the victim\u2019s breasts was for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire.\n3. Rape and Allied Offenses 8 19\u2014 taking indecent liberties \u2014 instructions\u2014no plain error\nThere was no plain error in a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a minor from the court\u2019s alleged failure to specify to the jury which of defendant\u2019s alleged acts was to support the indecent liberties conviction and the date the act occurred where the court indicated that the date of the alleged taking of indecent liberties with a minor child was the date shown on the indictment; the indictment clearly stated that 12 February 1986 was the date of the alleged offense; defendant failed to object at trial; and the asserted error would not have had a probable impact on the jury\u2019s finding of guilt.\n4. Criminal Law 8 92.2\u2014 consolidation of rape and sexual offense charges on one date with taking indecent liberties charge on another date \u2014 proper\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for sexual activity by a substitute parent, first degree sexual offense, first degree rape, and taking indecent liberties with a child by denying defendant\u2019s motion to sever the indecent liberties charge, even though it was based upon acts that allegedly occurred more than six months after the alleged acts underlying the other charges, where all four charges involved acts of sexual abuse by defendant upon the same victim in the same location, each of the alleged acts occurred when defendant was alone with the victim in the mobile home, and public policy favors consolidation of cases involving child witnesses testifying about sexual abuse.\nAppeal by defendant from Gaines (Robert EJ, Judge. Judgments entered 12 August 1987 in Superior Court, GASTON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 May 1988.\nDefendant was charged by indictment with sexual activity, vaginal intercourse, by a substitute parent in violation of G.S. 14-27.7, first degree sexual offense in violation of G.S. 14-27.4(a)(l), first degree rape in violation of G.S. 14-27.2(a)(l), and taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of G.S. 14-202.1. All of the offenses were alleged to have occurred on 21 June 1985 except for the indecent liberties offense, which was alleged to have occurred on 12 February 1986. Prior to trial, defendant moved for a severance of the indecent liberties offense; this motion was denied by the trial court. Defendant also requested a bill of particulars as to the exact acts alleged to be the basis of the indecent liberties offense and the first degree sexual offense. The State informed defendant that the allegation as to acts occurring on 21 June 1985 was that defendant performed acts of fellatio, sodomy, first-degree rape, and vaginal intercourse on the victim. The State informed defendant that the basis for the indecent liberties offense was the allegation that on 12 February 1986 defendant fondled the victim\u2019s breasts.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, defendant moved to dismiss each of the charges against him. The court allowed the motion as to the charge of first degree rape, but agreed that the State was entitled to an instruction on attempted first degree rape based on the evidence. The court denied defendant\u2019s motions as to the other charges. Defendant renewed his motions at the close of all the evidence, and the court again denied the motions.\nIn the charge to the jury, the trial judge instructed that the sexual act on which the first degree sexual offense was based was fellatio and that fellatio was the sexual act underlying the charge of sexual activity by a substitute parent. The court also instructed the jury on attempted rape and indecent liberties.\nAfter deliberation, the jury found defendant guilty of sexual activity by a substitute parent, first degree sexual offense, attempted first degree rape, and taking indecent liberties with a child. After finding the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, the court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment for the first degree sexual offense and to lesser concurrent sentences for the other offenses. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Daniel C. Oakley, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Bay Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Mark D. Montgomery, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0547-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 583
}
