{
  "id": 2514572,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TRAVIS ROGERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1988-04-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 316A87",
  "first_page": "102",
  "last_page": "105",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "322 N.C. 102"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "337 S.E. 2d 833",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "four-year-old victim testified defendant touched her \"project\" with his \"worm\" and pointed to her vaginal area"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4715827
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "four-year-old victim testified defendant touched her \"project\" with his \"worm\" and pointed to her vaginal area"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0076-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 S.E. 2d 564",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "seven-year-old victim testified defendant placed his finger in her \"coodie cat\" and used dolls to indicate the vaginal area"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.C. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4734159
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "seven-year-old victim testified defendant placed his finger in her \"coodie cat\" and used dolls to indicate the vaginal area"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/318/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 S.E. 2d 474",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "nine-year-old victim testified defendant touched her on her \"private parts\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4738889
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "nine-year-old victim testified defendant touched her on her \"private parts\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 S.E. 2d 591",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "605"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4680504
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "510-11"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0489-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 S.E. 2d 611",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "615"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4682851
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "138"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 411,
    "char_count": 6516,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.775,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.371480882347078e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4419062655776457
    },
    "sha256": "994ca9c714a3fb58bf65cbcdf4afb75dd808dc77364a197b7aa18538425f4995",
    "simhash": "1:972e5092cf5ed458",
    "word_count": 1085
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:38.561214+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TRAVIS ROGERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EXUM, Chief Justice.\nIn this appeal defendant\u2019s one assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of guilty of first degree sexual offense. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that defendant had a fair trial free from reversible error.\nAt trial the state\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 7 September 1986 defendant, age thirty-eight, was babysitting the six-year-old victim. The victim testified that on that day she went into defendant\u2019s bedroom and lay down beside him on the bed. Shortly after the victim had fallen asleep, defendant woke her and, using his hand to open her legs, \u201cwent inside\u201d her \u201cpee-pee\u201d with his finger. She testified that defendant said \u201cit felt good\u201d and continued to penetrate her with his finger for approximately one minute. Later that afternoon defendant took the victim back to her home.\nThe victim\u2019s mother testified that when she got home the victim told her that defendant had put his finger inside her \u201ccootie.\u201d\nOn 9 September Dr. Douglas Clark, a pediatrician, performed a pelvic exam on the victim. He testified the exam was normal, but that he did not expect to find any physical injury or tear in the victim\u2019s genital area because it was doubtful the insertion of a finger would cause much damage or injury.\nThe state also offered as corroborative evidence the testimony of Detective W. L. Arthur of the Concord Police Department, and Mrs. Kathy Shackleford, a worker at the Piedmont Area Mental Health Center. Detective Arthur testified that he interviewed the victim on 9 September 1986, and she told him defendant had \u201cput his finger inside her cootie.\u201d Mrs. Shackleford testified that the victim told her defendant had put his hand in her \u201ccootie.\u201d Mrs. Shackleford also testified that the victim demonstrated what had occurred using anatomically correct dolls.\nDefendant offered evidence and testified in his own behalf. Essentially defendant denied committing the offense charged against him.\nDefendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence at the close of all the evidence. We disagree.\nIn ruling on a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, which is entitled to every reasonable inference which can be drawn from that evidence. State v. Bell, 311 N.C. 131, 138, 316 S.E. 2d 611, 615 (1984). There must, however, be substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged together with evidence that defendant was the perpetrator of the offense. State v. Gardner, 311 N.C. 489, 510-11, 319 S.E. 2d 591, 605 (1984).\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.4 defines first degree sexual offense in pertinent part as follows:\n(a) A person is guilty of a sexual offense in the first degree if the person engages in a sexual act:\n(1) With a victim who is a child under the age of 13 years and the defendant is at least 12 years old and is at least four years older than the victim ....\nFor a charge of first degree sexual offense to withstand a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, there must be evidence, among other things, that defendant committed a \u201csexual act\u201d upon the victim. State v. Gardner, 311 N.C. 489, 319 S.E. 2d 591. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.1(4) defines a \u201csexual act\u201d as the \u201cpenetration, however slight, by any object into the genital or anal opening of another person\u2019s body.\u201d Defendant argues that the victim\u2019s testimony was ambiguous on the issue of penetration of the genital or anal opening of the victim\u2019s body and thus insufficient to show that penetration of one of these areas occurred. We disagree.\nThe evidence introduced by the state tending to establish penetration was the victim\u2019s testimony. She testified that defendant placed his hand between her legs and put his finger in her \u201cprivate spot,\u201d \u201ccootie\u201d and \u201cpee-pee.\u201d On cross-examination she testified as follows:\nQ. Now . . . you said something about some circles. Where were these circles?\nA. Inside me.\nQ. All right. Inside you? Now, is it right \u2014 exactly was it right exactly where you pee-pee?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Was it on the outside of that hole or was it in the hole?\nA. In the hole. . . .\nQ. In fact, he really didn\u2019t put his finger in any private part inside of you did he?\nA. Only where I pee-pee at.\nAlthough the victim did not use the word \u201cvagina,\u201d or \u201cgenital area,\u201d when describing the sexual assault perpetrated upon her, she did employ words commonly used by females of tender years to describe these areas of their bodies, of which they are just becoming aware. Other cases have come before this Court in which young children have used words similar or identical to those used by the victim to describe the male and female sex organs, and the children\u2019s testimony was found to be sufficient to prove the essential elements of a sexual offense. See, e.g., State v. Griffin, 319 N.C. 429, 355 S.E. 2d 474 (1987) (nine-year-old victim testified defendant touched her on her \u201cprivate parts\u201d); State v. Watkins, 318 N.C. 498, 349 S.E. 2d 564 (1986) (seven-year-old victim testified defendant placed his finger in her \u201ccoodie cat\u201d and used dolls to indicate the vaginal area); State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 337 S.E. 2d 833 (1985) (four-year-old victim testified defendant touched her \u201cproject\u201d with his \u201cworm\u201d and pointed to her vaginal area).\nWe conclude the evidence is ample to support the verdict of guilty of first degree sexual offense. Accordingly, in defendant\u2019s trial we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EXUM, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Francis W. Crawley, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.",
      "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Leland Q. Towns, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TRAVIS ROGERS\nNo. 316A87\n(Filed 6 April 1988)\nRape and Allied Offenses \u00a7 5\u2014 sexual offense \u2014 penetration of genital opening-sufficient testimony by child victim\nTestimony by the six-year-old victim that defendant placed his hand between her legs and put his finger in her \u201cprivate spot,\u201d \u201ccootie\u201d and \u201cpee-pee\u201d constituted sufficient evidence of penetration of the victim\u2019s genital opening to support defendant\u2019s conviction of a first degree sexual offense.\nAPPEAL by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a life sentence entered by Helms, J., at the 9 February 1987 Criminal Session of Superior Court, CABARRUS County, where defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree sexual offense. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 February 1988.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Francis W. Crawley, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Leland Q. Towns, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0102-01",
  "first_page_order": 146,
  "last_page_order": 149
}