{ "id": 8524136, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. WENDELL WADE STRICKLAND, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Strickland", "decision_date": "1990-01-04", "docket_number": "No. 8910SC411", "first_page": "642", "last_page": "649", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "96 N.C. App. 642" } ], "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": "355 S.E.2d 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 N.C. App. 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12170240 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/85/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 S.E.2d 651", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 N.C. App. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521188 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/89/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 S.E.2d 237", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 N.C. App. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8528058 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/93/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 S.E.2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4729914 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 S.E.2d 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4744421 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 S.E.2d 799", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "803" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 N.C. App. 13", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "247 S.E.2d 905", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"battered child syndrome,\" expert testimony admissible" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566309 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"battered child syndrome,\" expert testimony admissible" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 S.E.2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "575" }, { "page": "468" }, { "page": "578" }, { "page": "469" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4773847 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Va. L. Rev. 1657", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Va. L. Rev.", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 Minn. L. Rev. 395", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Minn. L. Rev.", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "729 F.2d 602", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1939198 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/729/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 S.W.2d 146", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 9961265 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/692/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 Pa.Super. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Super.", "case_ids": [ 570268 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-super/353/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 Or. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or.", "case_ids": [ 2189309 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or/294/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 N.E.2d 486", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Ohio App. 3d 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 6708700 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-app-3d/16/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 N.Y.S.2d 741", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Misc. 2d 1084", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Misc. 2d", "case_ids": [ 825053 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/misc2d/123/1084-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 Mont. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "case_ids": [ 2477826 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/211/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "308 Md. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 2066365 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/308/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 Kan. 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 1446117 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/236/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 N.E.2d 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 11016933 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ne2d/504/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "645 P.2d 1330", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 Haw. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Haw.", "case_ids": [ 1432311 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/haw/64/0598-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 Ga. 851", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 1210141 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/256/0851-01" ] }, { "cite": "507 So.2d 588", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 11961654, 11961606 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/507/0588-02", "/so2d/507/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 So.2d 1383", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 12121131 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/483/1383-01" ] }, { "cite": "527 A.2d 276", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 7876474 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/527/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 Ark. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721270 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/288/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 Ariz. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 1492703 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/145/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "681 P.2d 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Cal.3d 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4467709 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-3d/36/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 Cal. Rptr. 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.W.2d 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10673518 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/324/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "428 U.S. 903", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6183298, 6182756, 6181252, 6183146, 6182571, 6181805, 6182223, 6181423, 6181585, 6182388, 6182964, 6181945, 6182076 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/428/0903-13", "/us/428/0903-10", "/us/428/0903-01", "/us/428/0903-12", "/us/428/0903-09", "/us/428/0903-04", "/us/428/0903-07", "/us/428/0903-02", "/us/428/0903-03", "/us/428/0903-08", "/us/428/0903-11", "/us/428/0903-05", "/us/428/0903-06" ] }, { "cite": "213 S.E.2d 214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570009 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "325 S.E.2d 181", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "188" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4758195 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0669-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 845, "char_count": 16941, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8162511639428063e-07, "percentile": 0.8379965395665925 }, "sha256": "1c72ff9ba9719506e0e35148e880ba85aeddd9c25debce085259862ad26ee501", "simhash": "1:8727640c429fcd5f", "word_count": 2712 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:35.242103+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Johnson and COZORT concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. WENDELL WADE STRICKLAND, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nDefendant brings forward on appeal three assignments of error.\nI: Testimony of impeaching witnesses\nFirst, defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of three rebuttal witnesses. The State called Rickie Creech, defendant\u2019s roommate, who testified that he thought he heard \u201csex sounds\u201d coming from defendant\u2019s room on the night of the alleged rape. On cross-examination, he was questioned about a statement he had made to police officers shortly after the incident. Creech had indicated to the police that he heard the victim state to the defendant, \u201clet\u2019s make love.\u201d The State called three \u201cimpeaching\u201d witnesses who testified about an attempt by the defendant to influence the witness Creech to exaggerate and lie to the police. These witnesses stated that Creech had backed off of some of his earlier \u201cexaggerated\u201d statements and that he was initially deceptive in answering questions. They also stated that Creech told them that the defendant had asked him to lie about the incident. These witnesses were called during the State\u2019s case-in-chief for the purpose of impeaching Creech\u2019s testimony through extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter.\nDuring Creech\u2019s testimony, defendant\u2019s counsel objected to the presence of two witnesses, Longmire and Parker, in the courtroom after the judge had ordered witnesses sequestered. The trial judge allowed the witnesses to be present during Creech\u2019s testimony saying those witnesses must \u201cactually hear the precise words that [they] are called upon to contradict when they are called to the witness stand.\u201d When the challenged witnesses testified, however, defendant\u2019s counsel did not object to their testimony. These witnesses impeached Creech\u2019s testimony by showing evidence of bias and the extent to which he might have been influenced by the defendant. Defendant states in his reply brief: \u201cNo objection beyond that which was made by counsel was needed in order to bring the matter to the court\u2019s attention for a ruling.\u201d In fact, defense counsel\u2019s failure to make a timely objection at the time the State presented the challenged witnesses on direct examination precludes his right to assert this alleged error on appeal. North Carolina General Statute section 15A-1446(a) states: \u201c[E]rror may not be asserted upon appellate review unless the error has been brought to the attention of the trial court by appropriate and timely objection or motion.\u201d The statute requires that the objection to \u201cthe alleged error\u201d must have been \u201cclearly presented ... to the trial court\u201d (emphasis added). In this case, defendant\u2019s counsel objected only to the presence of two of the challenged witnesses during the testimony of Creech and not specifically to the content of the challenged witnesses\u2019 proposed testimony. Defense counsel stated: \u201cIf [\u2018Det. Mike Longmeyer\u2019 [sic] and \u2018Mr. Parker\u2019] are going to be called as witnesses, I want to object and want the record to reflect that they are not in the Courtroom and were so during the testimony of [Creech].\u201d There was no objection at trial to the testimony of Karen Lewis whose testimony the defense counsel is challenging on appeal. Therefore, defense counsel has waived his right to object to her testimony.\nII: Testimony by psychologist\nThe defendant\u2019s second assignment of error states that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Dr. Susan Roth. Dr. Roth, a clinical psychologist, tested, diagnosed, and treated the victim. She testified at trial that the victim was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and that the victim\u2019s behavior was consistent with the behaviors of other victims of sexual assault. Defendant states in her brief that Dr. Roth \u201cwas not qualified to offer testimony on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or to diagnose the [victim].\u201d In State v. Young, 312 N.C. 669, 325 S.E.2d 181 (1985), the standard for qualifying an expert witness was stated. Citing State v. Woods, 286 N.C. 612, 213 S.E.2d 214, death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 903 (1976), the Young court stated: \u201cWhere a judge finds a witness qualified as an expert, that finding will not be reversed unless there was no competent evidence to support the finding or unless the judge abused his discretion.\u201d Id. at 679, 325 S.E.2d at 188. Dr. Roth is an associate professor of psychology at Duke University and has been licensed as a psychologist in North Carolina for fourteen years. She has published fifteen research papers, has had eleven research grants, has presented papers at professional organizations, directed seventeen doctoral dissertations, and supervised twenty-three major papers and honors theses on the topics of sexual trauma, sexual aggression, stress and coping, and helplessness. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in qualifying Dr. Roth as an expert in clinical psychology and as an expert in the specific area of behavior and treatment of victims of sexual assault.\nThe defendant also contends that \u201cft]estimony on Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome should not have been admitted.\u201d When the victim went to see Dr. Susan Roth after the alleged rape, Dr. Roth conducted tests, interviewed the victim and then diagnosed her as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. At trial, Dr. Roth stated her conclusion:\nQ. Based on your testing that you gave her and based on her narrative to you of what happened to her that night, did you diagnose her as suffering from any recognized trauma?\nA. Yes.\nQ. What was that diagnosis?\nA. Post-traumatic stress disorder.\nThe American Psychiatric Association recognizes the diagnosis for PTSD in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 236 (3rd ed. 1980). Some jurisdictions have held that expert testimony on post traumatic stress disorder in rape cases is not admissible. See State v. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. 1982); People v. Bledsoe, 203 Cal. Rptr. 450, 36 Cal.3d 236, 681 P.2d 291 (1984). Most jurisdictions allow such testimony on PTSD, or on rape trauma syndrome, or expert testimony regarding reactions or behavior consistent with other victims of sexual assault. See State v. Huey, 145 Ariz. 59, 699 P.2d 1290 (1985); Poyner v. State, 288 Ark. 402, 705 S.W.2d 882 (1986); Powell v. State, 527 A.2d 276 (Del. 1987); Kruse v. State, 483 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 1986), rev. dismissed, 507 So.2d 588 (1987); Allison v. State, 256 Ga. 851, 353 S.E.2d 805 (1987); State v. Kim, 64 Haw. 598, 645 P.2d 1330 (1982); Simmons v. State, 504 N.E.2d 575 (Ind. 1987); State v. McQuillen, 236 Kan. 161, 689 P.2d 822 (1984); State v. Allewalt, 308 Md. 89, 517 A.2d 741 (1986); State v. Liddell, 211 Mont. 180, 685 P.2d 918 (1984); People v. Reid, 123 Misc. 2d 1084, 475 N.Y.S.2d 741 (1984); State v. Whitman, 16 Ohio App. 3d 246, 475 N.E.2d 486 (1984); State v. Middleton, 294 Or. 427, 657 P.2d 1215 (1983); Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 353 Pa.Super. 426, 510 A.2d 735 (1986); Brown v. State, 692 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. 1985); U.S. v. Winters, 729 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1984). Legal authors have also been divided in their approach to the admissibility of testimony on rape trauma syndrome. For some advocating admission of such testimony, see Massaro, Experts, Psychology, Credibility and Rape: The Rape Trauma Syndrome Issue and Its Implications for Expert Psychological Testimony, 69 Minn. L. Rev. 395 (1985). For writers who have criticized the admissibility of this testimony, see Note, Checking the Allure of Increased Conviction Rates: The Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Rape Trauma Syndrome in Criminal Proceedings, 70 Va. L. Rev. 1657 (1984).\nAs recently as 1986, North Carolina\u2019s appellate courts had not directly addressed the question of the admissibility of testimony on PTSD. In State v. Stafford, the majority in this North Carolina Supreme Court decision addressed only the question of whether or not this testimony on rape trauma syndrome was presented \u201cfor purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment\u201d or was it presented \u201cin preparation for going to court.\u201d 317 N.C. 568, 346 S.E.2d 463 (1986). The majority stated: \u201cWe do not deem it necessary to reach on this record the question whether in a proper case testimony about rape trauma syndrome will be admissible in the courts of this state.\u201d Id. at 575, 346 S.E.2d at 468. Justices Martin and Mitchell dissented in that opinion, indicating that statements made by the victim\u2019s physician \u201care within the scope of admissible hearsay permitted by N.C.R.Evid. 803(4)\u201d which permits statements made \u201cfor purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.\u201d Id. at 578, 346 S.E.2d at 469. The two dissenting justices did not question whether statements on rape trauma syndrome should be admissible in North Carolina courts but, by arguing for the admissibility of the statements made in this case, indicated that they would allow such testimony if it met the appropriate evidence requirements. In that same case when it was heard in the Court of Appeals, Judge Martin did address this question directly in his dissenting opinion and stated:\nI would hold such expert testimony admissible. There is recognized scientific authority for the medical conclusion that there exists a complex and unique number of physical and emotional symptoms exhibited by victims of rape, which are similar, but not identical, to other post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Massaro, supra (reviewing scientific studies). An understanding of those symptoms, the unique reactions of victims of rape, is not within the common knowledge or experience of most persons called upon to serve as jurors. Therefore, expert testimony as to the symptoms of the syndrome and its existence, is admissible to assist jurors in understanding the evidence and in drawing appropriate conclusions therefrom. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 702; State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 559, 247 S.E.2d 905 (1978) (\u201cbattered child syndrome,\u201d expert testimony admissible).\n77 N.C. App. 13, 24, 334 S.E.2d 799, 803 (1985), aff\u2019d, 317 N.C. 568, 346 S.E.2d 463 (1986).\nIn 1987, the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Clemmons, 319 N.C. 192, 353 S.E.2d 209 (1987), addressed the admissibility of evidence of the defendant\u2019s prior alleged sexual misconduct. During the trial, \u201can expert medical doctor specializing in the field of psychiatry\u201d testified that he had diagnosed the victim of this alleged rape as having \u201cpost traumatic stress disorder\u201d and he described her behavior which prompted his diagnosis. Id. at 196, 353 S.E.2d at 211. In concluding that the challenged testimony on prior sexual misconduct was admissible, the court stated: \u201cConsidering . . . particularly the medical evidence of the victim\u2019s severe post-traumatic stress disorder for a lengthy period immediately following the incident, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would not have convicted defendant. . . .\u201d Id. at 199, 353 S.E.2d at 213. Clemmons indicates that evidence on PTSD would be admissible in North Carolina courts.\nThe defendant also objected to the testimony by the psychologist that the victim \u201cdid not fake her responses to the tests administered to her by [the psychologist],\u201d that the victim did not \u201cexaggerate the symptoms of PTSD,\u201d and also to the psychologist\u2019s \u201cextensive testimony ... on the long term effects of PTSD.\u201d Such testimony is admissible and relevant as an expert\u2019s opinion on the credibility of psychological tests and as the expert\u2019s basis for making her diagnosis. See State v. Kennedy, 320 N.C. 20, 357 S.E.2d 359 (1987); State v. Helms, 93 N.C. App. 394, 378 S.E.2d 237 (1989); State v. Bailey, 89 N.C. App. 212, 365 S.E.2d 651 (1988); State v. Teeter, 85 N.C. App. 624, 355 S.E.2d 804 (1987).\nIll: Jurisdiction\nFinally, defendant concedes that, \u201cas a matter of statutory law, Wake County trial court had [subject matter] jurisdiction\u201d but that \u201cthis statute violates defendant\u2019s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.\u201d Defendant never made a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue and has therefore waived his right to appeal this assignment of error. N.C.G.S. section 15A-135.\nNo error.\nJudges Johnson and COZORT concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General William P. Hart, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Mark D. Montgomery, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. WENDELL WADE STRICKLAND, Defendant\nNo. 8910SC411\n(Filed 4 January 1990)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 162 (NCI3d)\u2014 necessity for objection to testimony\nDefendant was precluded from asserting error in the testimony of two State\u2019s witnesses which impeached a defense witness where defendant objected only to the presence of the two witnesses in the courtroom during testimony by the defense witness but failed to object to the testimony of the State\u2019s witnesses.\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7\u00a7 61, 62.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 51.1 (NCI3d)\u2014 clinical psychologist \u2014 expert in behavior of sexual assault victims\nThe trial court did not err in qualifying a witness as an expert in clinical psychology and in the specific area of behavior and treatment of sexual assault victims where the witness is an associate professor of psychology at Duke University and has been licensed as a psychologist in North Carolina for fourteen years, has published fifteen research papers, has had eleven research grants, has presented papers at professional organizations, has directed seventeen doctoral dissertations, and has supervised twenty-three major papers and honors theses on the topics of sexual trauma, sexual aggression, stress and coping, and helplessness.\nAm Jur 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence \u00a7 197; Rape \u00a7\u00a7 68, 68.5.\n3. Rape and Allied Offenses \u00a7 4 (NCI3d> \u2014 rape victim \u2014 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder \u2014 admissibility of opinion testimony\nA clinical psychologist was properly permitted to testify that an alleged rape and sexual offense victim was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and that her behavior was consistent with that of other sexual assault victims.\nAm Jur 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence \u00a7 197; Rape \u00a7\u00a7 68, 68.5.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 50.1 (NCI3d); Rape and Allied Offenses \u00a7 4 (NCI3d)\u2014 clinical psychologist \u2014opinion on reliability of victim\u2019s responses \u2014long term effect of PTSD \u2014admissibility of testimony\nA clinical psychologist\u2019s testimony that an alleged rape victim did not fake her responses to tests administered to her and did not exaggerate the symptoms of PTSD and the witness\u2019s extensive testimony on the long term effect of PTSD was admissible and relevant as expert testimony on the credibility of psychological tests and as the basis for her diagnosis of the victim.\nAm Jur 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence \u00a7 197; Rape \u00a7\u00a7 68, 68.5.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 146.2 (NCI3d)\u2014 subject matter jurisdiction over crimes \u2014failure to object\nDefendant\u2019s failure to make a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue waived his right to appeal the constitutionality of the statute giving a Wake County trial court subject matter jurisdiction over the charges against defendant.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 339, 361, 364.\nAPPEAL by defendant from a judgment entered 25 May 1988 by Judge Anthony M. Brannon in WAKE County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 November 1989.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that after shopping the victim left Crabtree Valley Mall in Raleigh and went to her car. As she was opening the door, the defendant intervened, putting her in the passenger seat and taking the driver\u2019s seat himself. The victim stated that the defendant drove the car out of Raleigh, stopped on a deserted road, slapped her in the face with his hand, engaged in cunnilingus upon her and then raped her. He then drove the car to Garner where he used her credit card to take $200 from a bank machine. She testified that defendant took her to his house where she spent the night in his bedroom. Defendant\u2019s roommate testified that he saw the defendant and the victim at the house on the night in question and thought he heard the sounds of lovemaking coming from defendant\u2019s room. The next day, defendant took the victim to a place near Raleigh and let her out. Defendant\u2019s roommate stated that he followed the defendant and victim on that morning, and that, when defendant got out of victim\u2019s car, victim kissed him good-bye. Victim denied kissing defendant good-bye. The victim testified that she then contacted her employer, her boyfriend and the police.\nAt trial, three witnesses were called to impeach the testimony of defendant\u2019s roommate. A psychologist testified at trial about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and stated that the prosecuting witness\u2019s symptoms were consistent with sexual abuse and inconsistent with consensual sexual activity. The jury found defendant guilty of common law robbery, second degree rape, second degree sexual offense, assault on a female, and first degree kidnapping. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General William P. Hart, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Mark D. Montgomery, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0642-01", "first_page_order": 674, "last_page_order": 681 }