{
  "id": 219976,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONNIE LANE STANCIL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stancil",
  "decision_date": "2002-03-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 589A01",
  "first_page": "266",
  "last_page": "267",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "355 N.C. 266"
    }
  ],
  "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": "552 S.E.2d 212",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11355762
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/146/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 S.E.2d 80",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "83"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4696125
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "38-39"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E.2d 375",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "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": "357 S.E.2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "366"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4729914
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "32"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0020-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "370 S.E.2d 676",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "678"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 N.C. 818",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2515424
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "822-23"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/322/0818-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "412 S.E.2d 883",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "888"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 N.C. 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2513076
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "818"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/330/0808-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "553 S.E.2d 679",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 N.C. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        138480
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/354/0354-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "543 S.E.2d 179",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N.C. App. 411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9441531
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/142/0411-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 S.E.2d 463",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4724664
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0610-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 3746,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.735,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.689525487547445e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9714523896953066
    },
    "sha256": "5c49ec6963b6ed6d58fa52f931f381edfcb2fc9ba032f7d66b28985dc0c8e465",
    "simhash": "1:03681022656591cb",
    "word_count": 605
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:10.729326+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONNIE LANE STANCIL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nIn a sexual offense prosecution involving a child victim, the trial court should not admit expert opinion that sexual abuse has in fact occurred because, absent physical evidence supporting a diagnosis of sexual abuse, such testimony is an impermissible opinion regarding the victim\u2019s credibility. State v. Trent, 320 N.C. 610, 359 S.E.2d 463 (1987); State v. Grover, 142 N.C. App. 411, 543 S.E.2d 179, aff\u2019d per curiam, 354 N.C. 354, 553 S.E.2d 679 (2001). However, an expert witness may testify, upon a proper foundation, as to the profiles of sexually abused children and whether a particular complainant has symptoms or characteristics consistent therewith. State v. Hall, 330 N.C. 808, 818, 412 S.E.2d 883, 888 (1992); State v. Aguallo, 322 N.C. 818, 822-23, 370 S.E.2d 676, 678 (1988); State v. Kennedy, 320 N.C. 20, 32, 357 S.E.2d 359, 366 (1987).\nIn the case sub judice, although a thorough examination and a series of tests revealed no physical evidence of sexual abuse, the trial court allowed Dr. Prakash, a pediatrician, to testify that the victim was \u201csexually assaulted and [that there was] also maltreatment, emotionally, physically, and sexually.\u201d The doctor based her opinion on two examinations of the child and her review of an in-depth interview with the child by a psychologist. Upon the record before us, the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for the admission of Dr. Prakash\u2019s statement of opinion that the victim was in fact sexually assaulted under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 702.\nThe defendant did not make a timely objection at trial to Dr. Prakash\u2019s statement of opinion. We review for plain error. See State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 300 S.E.2d 375 (1983). The overwhelming evidence against defendant leads us to conclude that the error committed did not cause the jury to reach a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached. See State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 38-39, 340 S.E.2d 80, 83 (1986). Accordingly, although the trial court\u2019s admission of the challenged portion of Dr. Prakash\u2019s testimony was error, it did not rise to the level of plain error.\nMODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Michael A. Grace and Christopher R. Clifton for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONNIE LANE STANCIL\nNo. 589A01\n(Filed 7 March 2002)\n1. Evidence\u2014 sexual offense against child \u2014 expert testimony In a sexual offense prosecution involving a child victim, the trial court should not admit expert opinion that sexual abuse has in fact occurred because, absent physical evidence supporting a diagnosis of sexual abuse, such testimony is an impermissible opinion regarding the victim\u2019s credibility. However, an expert witness may testify, upon a proper foundation, as to the profiles of sexually abused children and whether a particular complainant has symptoms or characteristics consistent therewith.\n2. Evidence\u2014 sexual assault \u2014 child victim \u2014 expert opinion\u2014 not plain error Although the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for the admission of a pediatrician\u2019s statement of opinion that a child victim was in fact sexually assaulted under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 702, the admission of this testimony did not constitute plain error because the error did not cause the jury to reach a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant.\nAppeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 146 N.C. App. 234, 552 S.E.2d 212 (2001), finding no error in a judgment entered 16 September 1999 by Winner, J., in Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 February 2002.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nMichael A. Grace and Christopher R. Clifton for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0266-01",
  "first_page_order": 314,
  "last_page_order": 315
}