State v. Sprouse

Citation719 S.E.2d 234
Decision Date06 December 2011
Docket NumberNo. COA11–518.,COA11–518.
CourtCourt of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
PartiesSTATE of North Carolina v. William Thomas SPROUSE.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 22 September 2010 and on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to review orders entered 22 September 2010 by Judge James U. Downs in Haywood County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 October 2011.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Crumpler, for the State.

Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Emily H. Davis, for defendant appellant.

McCULLOUGH, Judge.

On 22 September 2010, William Thomas Sprouse (defendant) was convicted of five counts of statutory rape, four counts of statutory sex offense, nine counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, and nine counts of sexual activity by a substitute parent. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to dismiss one count of statutory sex offense and one count of sexual activity by a substitute parent; (2) denying his motion to sequester witnesses; (3) ordering lifetime satellite-based monitoring; and (4) admitting certain testimony of a Department of Social Services (“DSS”) social worker. We find no prejudicial error in defendant's trial, and we affirm the trial court's orders of lifetime satellite-based monitoring as to defendant's convictions for statutory rape. However, we reverse the trial court's lifetime satellite-based monitoring orders as to defendant's remaining convictions.

I. Background

The State's evidence at trial tended to show the following facts. The minor child victim in the present case, A.B., was born in Hendersonville, North Carolina, on 25 September 1992. A.B.'s mother first met defendant when she was pregnant with A.B., and defendant was present when A.B. was born. Thereafter, A.B.'s mother sporadically cohabitated with and dated defendant until October 2003.

In the summer of 2005, when A.B. was thirteen years old, she stopped living with her mother and came to live with defendant. At that time, defendant's girlfriend and future wife, Raquel Sprouse (“Raquel”), was also living with defendant. Raquel's two biological daughters also lived in the home. A.B. agreed to live in defendant's home because of the other children living in the residence. In describing her relationship with defendant, A.B. testified, He was like a dad to me.”

Thereafter, in December of 2005, A.B. and defendant were watching television on a couch in their home when defendant began talking to A.B. about sex. Defendant told A.B. how to have sex and asked A.B. if she had ever had sex. Then defendant lifted the back end of A.B.'s shorts and proceeded to have vaginal intercourse with her. During the intercourse, A.B. told defendant “no” and “stop,” and she tried to push herself away from defendant, but defendant pulled her back and told her it was okay and that it would not hurt. Defendant told A.B. not to tell anyone about the incident or he would kill himself or A.B. before he would rot in jail.

A few days later, A.B. was alone in the home with defendant and requested his permission to leave the house. After being asked his permission, defendant requested that A.B. “give him head.” A.B. informed defendant that she didn't know what he meant, so defendant pushed A.B. down on her knees, inserted his penis into her mouth, and pushed her head, forcing her to perform oral sex on him.

Sometime between 25 December 2005 and 24 March 2006, A.B. again entered defendant's bedroom and asked for permission to go somewhere. Defendant responded that she could go if she would “give him [her] ass.” Defendant then pushed A.B.'s head down into the pillows where no one could hear her and had anal sex with her. A.B. screamed for defendant to stop, and at some point, defendant let A.B. go. A.B. left defendant's bedroom and went into Raquel's youngest daughter's bedroom, where she cried from the pain that resulted from the incident. A.B. then went to the bathroom and wiped herself, noticing blood on the toilet paper.

During this same time period, A.B. again requested permission from defendant to go somewhere with Raquel's oldest daughter. Defendant told A.B. the only way she would be able to go was if she “sucked his dick.” Defendant then forced A.B. to perform oral sex on him for approximately ten minutes until he ejaculated on her shirt. A.B. did not tell anyone about these first four incidents because she was scared. A.B. testified to multiple other sexual encounters with defendant that occurred during the time period from Christmas of 2006 to the end of May 2008.

At the end of May 2008, A.B. was thrown out of defendant's home because defendant did not like A.B.'s boyfriend. A.B. then went to live with her grandmother for a short while before moving in with her boyfriend and his mother, Diane Jones (“Jones”), who were neighbors of defendant. In November of 2008, A.B. told Jones that in order to get permission to go anywhere, she was forced to have sex with defendant. Jones confronted defendant with A.B.'s allegations, which defendant denied. A.B. then left Jones' home in December of 2008 due to DSS involvement with A.B.'s mother, and A.B. was placed with defendant's stepmother.

In March of 2009, A.B. ran away from defendant's stepmother's home and returned to Jones' home after having ingested multiple prescription pills in an attempt to overdose. Jones left shortly after A.B. arrived; A.B.'s boyfriend then broke up with A.B. and also left the premises. While sitting alone in Jones' home, A.B. noticed a gun sitting on her boyfriend's bedside table. A.B. picked up the gun to shoot herself, but the gun was not loaded. Police were called, and A.B. was then taken to Copestone, a mental health facility. During her stay at Copestone, A.B. was interviewed by Linda Opalewski (“Opalewski”), an investigative and assessment worker in the forensic unit at the Buncombe County Department of Social Services (“BCDSS”); during this interview, A.B. told Opalewski about defendant's sexual abuse. After interviewing A.B., on 1 April 2009, Opalewski contacted Detective James Marsh (“Detective Marsh”) of the Haywood County Sheriff's Department and gave him a detailed statement concerning the disclosures A.B. had made to her during the interview at Copestone. Opalewski also gathered information, ran criminal record checks, and contacted witnesses based on her interview with A.B. After Opalewski completed her investigation, BCDSS concluded that A.B.'s claims of sexual abuse by defendant were substantiated.

On 8 April 2009, a social worker with the Haywood County Department of Social Services (“HCDSS”) came to defendant's residence to discuss the allegations A.B. had made about him. On 13 April 2009, HCDSS returned to defendant's home, took Raquel's youngest daughter away for safety reasons, and placed her in kinship care. Shortly thereafter, defendant devised a plan for Raquel and him to tattoo each other's genitals and say the tattoos had been there for years to “blow [A.B.'s] story out of the water.” Defendant used India ink and a sewing needle to put a tattoo of a rose on Raquel's vagina, and Raquel used the same items to put a tattoo of a bumblebee on defendant's penis.

After receiving the report from Opalewski, Detective Marsh interviewed A.B. about the allegations of sexual abuse against defendant and corroborated her story with certain other individuals. On 28 April 2009, defendant was arrested by Detective Marsh. After his arrest, defendant asked Detective Marsh if A.B. had informed him of defendant's penis tattoo. Detective Marsh then called A.B. to ask her about the tattoo, and she told him there was no tattoo on defendant's penis.

While in jail, defendant asked Raquel to contact several “friends” to serve as witnesses for him. Defendant specifically requested Raquel to convince one witness, Casey Burris (“Burris”), to testify that she had been a sexual partner of theirs and to verify that defendant and Raquel had gotten their tattoos six years prior. However, Burris met with Detective Marsh and informed him that Raquel was trying to get her to lie to the police about having seen the tattoos.

On 3 June 2009, Detective Marsh had Burris make a recorded pretextual phone call to Raquel. During the phone call, Burris told Raquel that if Raquel wanted Burris to lie about the tattoos, Burris would have to know what kind of tattoos Raquel and defendant had. Raquel stated the tattoos were a flower and a bumblebee. Based on the conversation, Detective Marsh obtained a search warrant and seized Raquel's cell phones, which contained text messages between Raquel and Burris as well as identifying information for the individuals being contacted by Raquel.

Thereafter, on 3 July 2009, Raquel contacted Detective Marsh and told him that she had put the bumblebee tattoo on defendant's penis just weeks before he was arrested. Nonetheless, defendant maintained that he had had the bumblebee tattoo since either the Fall of 2003 or the Spring of 2004. However, photographs taken of Raquel performing oral sex on defendant during a hotel stay in January 2007 showed that defendant had no tattoo on his penis as of that time.

Further, after defendant was arrested and charged, he also asked Raquel to contact Chris Gagner (“Gagner”), a member of the “Outlaws” motorcycle club, and ask Gagner to kill A.B. At first, Gagner requested the sum of $10,000 or defendant's motorcycle as the price for killing A.B., but Gagner then changed his mind and stated that he wanted “nothing to do with it.”

On 15 June 2009, defendant was indicted on five counts of statutory rape, four counts of statutory sex offense, nine counts of indecent liberties, and nine counts of sexual activity by a substitute parent. At trial, the State presented the testimony of A.B., Jones, Opalewski, Raquel, Burris, and Detective Marsh to establish the foregoing events. Defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • State v. Perkins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • December 6, 2022
    ...... N.C.App. 430, 434, 707 S.E.2d 770, 774 (2011); State v. Stokes , 216 N.C.App. 529, 537-38, 718 S.E.2d 174, 180. (2011); State v. Green , 211 N.C.App. 599, 600-01,. 710 S.E.2d 292, 294 (2011); State v. Clark , 211. N.C.App. 60, 70-71, 714 S.E.2d 754, 761-62 (2011); State. v. Sprouse , 217 N.C.App. 230, 238-39, 719 S.E.2d 234,. 241 (2011); State v. May , 207 N.C.App. 260, 262, 700. S.E.2d 42, 44 (2010); State v. Williams , 207. N.C.App. 499, 501, 700 S.E.2d 774, 775 (2010); State v. Cowan , 207 N.C.App. 192, 195-96, 700 S.E.2d 239, 241-42. (2010); State v. Clayton , ......
  • State v. Perkins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • December 6, 2022
    ...... N.C.App. 430, 434, 707 S.E.2d 770, 774 (2011); State v. Stokes , 216 N.C.App. 529, 537-38, 718 S.E.2d 174, 180. (2011); State v. Green , 211 N.C.App. 599, 600-01,. 710 S.E.2d 292, 294 (2011); State v. Clark , 211. N.C.App. 60, 70-71, 714 S.E.2d 754, 761-62 (2011); State. v. Sprouse , 217 N.C.App. 230, 238-39, 719 S.E.2d 234,. 241 (2011); State v. May , 207 N.C.App. 260, 262, 700. S.E.2d 42, 44 (2010); State v. Williams , 207. N.C.App. 499, 501, 700 S.E.2d 774, 775 (2010); State v. Cowan , 207 N.C.App. 192, 195-96, 700 S.E.2d 239, 241-42. (2010); State v. Clayton , ......
  • State v. Perkins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • October 18, 2022
    ...... N.C.App. 430, 434, 707 S.E.2d 770, 774 (2011); State v. Stokes , 216 N.C.App. 529, 537-38, 718 S.E.2d 174, 180. (2011); State v. Green , 211 N.C.App. 599, 600-01,. 710 S.E.2d 292, 294 (2011); State v. Clark , 211. N.C.App. 60, 70-71, 714 S.E.2d 754, 761-62 (2011); State. v. Sprouse , 217 N.C.App. 230, 238-39, 719 S.E.2d 234,. 241 (2011); State v. May , 207 N.C.App. 260, 262, 700. S.E.2d 42, 44 (2010); State v. Williams , 207. N.C.App. 499, 501, 700 S.E.2d 774, 775 (2010); State v. Cowan , 207 N.C.App. 192, 195-96, 700 S.E.2d 239, 241-42. (2010); State v. Clayton , ......
  • State v. Perkins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • October 18, 2022
    ...... N.C.App. 430, 434, 707 S.E.2d 770, 774 (2011); State v. Stokes , 216 N.C.App. 529, 537-38, 718 S.E.2d 174, 180. (2011); State v. Green , 211 N.C.App. 599, 600-01,. 710 S.E.2d 292, 294 (2011); State v. Clark , 211. N.C.App. 60, 70-71, 714 S.E.2d 754, 761-62 (2011); State. v. Sprouse , 217 N.C.App. 230, 238-39, 719 S.E.2d 234,. 241 (2011); State v. May , 207 N.C.App. 260, 262, 700. S.E.2d 42, 44 (2010); State v. Williams , 207. N.C.App. 499, 501, 700 S.E.2d 774, 775 (2010); State v. Cowan , 207 N.C.App. 192, 195-96, 700 S.E.2d 239, 241-42. (2010); State v. Clayton , ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT