{
  "id": 8527845,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY EARL ROBERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Roberson",
  "decision_date": "1989-02-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 882SC629",
  "first_page": "83",
  "last_page": "86",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "93 N.C. App. 83"
    }
  ],
  "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": "342 S.E. 2d 509",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "513"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4702203
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "504"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0497-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 S.E. 2d 822",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "824"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 N.C. 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2514083
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "590"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/322/0585-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 S.E. 2d 813",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 N.C. 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570316
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/304/0643-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 S.E. 2d 118",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "119"
        },
        {
          "page": "119"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2569213
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "577"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0574-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 457,
    "char_count": 7416,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.778,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.064146621081399e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8568231198035098
    },
    "sha256": "e492ff1fb4a6cf21853e342cab66716d91c916b99acdfc520ee33667f8ec2473",
    "simhash": "1:1b61e1e0563b9e86",
    "word_count": 1230
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:43.799233+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Eagles and P\u00c1RKER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY EARL ROBERSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nDefendant assigns error to the admission of testimony of two witnesses that they were touched by defendant in ways similar to the victim in this case. He also assigns error to the admission of testimony tending to corroborate the testimony of these witnesses. We have reviewed the challenged testimony and find no error in the trial court admitting the evidence.\nThe 12-year-old female victim testified for the State that on 9 September 1987 after 11 p.m. she was asleep on the couch in her living room and was awakened by defendant standing beside her with his hand underneath her skirt, rubbing her vaginal area. When she woke up, defendant removed his hand, put his finger to his lips and said \u201cshh,\u201d and went out the door. Defendant testified in his own behalf and admitted knocking on the front door of the victim\u2019s house because he wanted to use the telephone. Defendant denied entering the house or touching the victim. At that time, defendant was 28 years of age.\nThe State presented the testimony of Melissa Brinson that in December 1982 when she was 11 years old she was at defendant\u2019s house playing with his wife\u2019s daughter, Susie. Melissa entered a screened-in porch and defendant started tickling her and then \u201cgrabbed between [her] legs.\u201d William Thomas came onto the porch and told defendant to leave her alone. A few days later, Melissa spent the night with Susie. While she was asleep, defendant got on the bed, held Melissa\u2019s arms and tried to kiss her. At trial, William Thomas testified to the events on the porch and Melissa\u2019s mother testified that Melissa told her of both incidents a few months later.\nDefendant\u2019s daughter, Crystal Roberson, also testified for the State. Her testimony indicated that defendant touched her vaginal area when she was six years old. She turned seven in the two weeks before the trial. A deputy sheriff testified that Crystal told him that defendant had put his hand between her legs and kissed her with his tongue in her mouth.\nDefendant objected to the testimony of Melissa Brinson. He did not object to the testimony of William Thomas, Melissa\u2019s mother, Crystal Roberson or the deputy sheriff. App. R. 10(b) requires that an exception be preserved at trial by objection. However, we choose to address defendant\u2019s contentions in exercise of our discretion as the same issues are raised by Melissa Brinson\u2019s testimony. App. R. 2. Defendant assigns error to all the testimony contending the court erroneously allowed the State to introduce evidence of alleged prior acts of misconduct.\nDefendant contends the challenged testimony is inadmissible under both G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b) and G.S. 8C-1, Rule 403. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of other wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove a person\u2019s character but may be admissible to prove \u201cmotive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.\u201d Rule 403 allows the trial court to exclude relevant evidence \u201cif its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.\u201d Defendant contends the evidence of prior acts was inadmissible under Rule 404(b) because the prior acts were both remote in time and dissimilar to the act charged in the indictment. Defendant further contends that even if this court finds the evidence admissible under Rule 404(b) it should have been excluded under the balancing test of Rule 403 as it caused confusion and was prejudicial.\nOur Supreme Court has held \u201cthat evidence of prior sex acts may have some relevance to the question of defendant\u2019s guilt of the crime charged if it tends to show a relevant state of mind such as intent, motive, plan, or opportunity.\u201d State v. Boyd, 321 N.C. 574, 577, 364 S.E. 2d 118, 119 (1988). However, \u201cthe ultimate test for determining whether such evidence is admissible is whether the incidents are sufficiently similar and not so remote in time as to-be more probative than prejudicial under the balancing test of . . . Rule 403.\u201d Id. at 577, 364 S.E. 2d at 119. The period of time between the prior sexual acts and the acts charged is an important part of the balancing process. State v. Shane, 304 N.C. 643, 285 S.E. 2d 813 (1982). \u201c[T]he passage of time between the commission of the . . . acts slowly erodes the commonality between them.\u201d State v. Jones, 322 N.C. 585, 590, 369 S.E. 2d 822, 824 (1988).\nIn this case, the lapse of nearly five years between the events involving Melissa and those involving the victim does not diminish the similarities between the acts. Melissa testified that defendant \u201cgrabbed between [her] legs\u201d and the victim testified that defendant rubbed her vaginal area. Both Melissa and the victim, young girls at the time of the incidents, knew defendant before the incidents. The intervening years do not dilute the similarities especially when considered in light of Crystal\u2019s testimony that defendant had touched her in the same way during the year before the trial. \u201cThis Court has been quite \u2018liberal in admitting evidence of similar sex crimes\u2019 under the common plan or scheme exception.\u201d State v. Gordon, 316 N.C. 497, 504, 342 S.E. 2d 509, 513 (1986). Therefore, we hold that the testimony of Melissa and Crystal and the corroborating evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403.\nEven if the trial court had erred in admitting the challenged testimony, defendant was not prejudiced by its admission. The evidence showed that defendant was in the area and his footprints were found in the yard. Moreover, the evidence showed the victim initially identified defendant by name as the intruder before law enforcement officers apprehended him or asked the victim to identify him. At trial, the victim testified without hesitation that defendant committed the acts charged. The jury had before it strong and sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty of the crimes charged even without the evidence of prior acts.\nNo error.\nJudges Eagles and P\u00c1RKER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LEWIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General James C. Gulick, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Teresa A. McHugh, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY EARL ROBERSON\nNo. 882SC629\n(Filed 21 February 1989)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 34.7; Rape and Allied Offenses \u00a7 19\u2014 taking indecent liberties with minor \u2014evidence of prior offenses \u2014 admissibility\nIn a prosecution of defendant for first degree burglary and taking indecent liberties with a minor where the evidence tended to show that defendant entered the home of the victim at night while she was sleeping, placed his hand under her skirt, rubbed her vaginal area, and left when she awoke, the trial court did not err in admitting testimony that defendant had touched another young girl in a similar manner five years before and had touched his own daughter in a similar manner during the year prior to trial. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rules 403 and 404(b).\nAppeal by defendant from Griffin (William C., Jr.), Judge. Judgment entered 26 February 1988 in Superior Court, MARTIN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 January 1989.\nDefendant was found guilty by a jury of first degree burglary and of taking indecent liberties with a minor. He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of twenty-five years and ten years. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General James C. Gulick, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Teresa A. McHugh, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0083-01",
  "first_page_order": 113,
  "last_page_order": 116
}