State v. Eckenrod
| Decision Date | 29 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | COA22-7 |
| Citation | 2022 NCCOA 934 |
| Parties | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. COPPER URION ECKENROD, Defendant |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 August 2022.
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 12 March 2021 by Judge J Thomas Davis in McDowell County Nos. 18 CRS 050438, 050441 050477, 050478 Superior Court.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Lauren M. Clemmons, for the State
Holladay Law Office, by Sarah Holladay, for Defendant-Appellant.
¶ 1 Copper Urion Eckenrod ("Defendant") appeals from judgment after a jury convicted him of three counts of indecent liberties with a child, one count of first-degree sex offense, and one count of first-degree statutory sex offense. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the sex offense charges, and erred, abused its discretion, or plainly erred in admitting certain expert testimony. After careful review, we conclude Defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.
¶ 2 The complaining witness in this matter is Alice,[1] who was twelve years old at the time of trial. Defendant and Alice's mother became romantically involved in December 2012 before getting married in July 2013. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Defendant was Alice's stepfather.
¶ 3 Alice's trial testimony tended to show the following: from March 2013 to October 2013, the parties resided in a three-bedroom trailer at Shady Lane Estates in Marion, North Carolina. One night when Alice was five or six years old, Defendant showed Alice two pornographic videos of a boy and girl engaged in sexual acts. After the videos, Defendant stated he needed "help getting white stuff out of his boy part" and demonstrated how he wanted her to manipulate his "boy part." Alice complied until "white stuff" that "look[ed] like milk" came out. Defendant cleaned up the mess with a paper towel and then watched a cartoon movie with Alice.
"2013 Incident"
¶ 4 From October 2013 to April 2014, the parties resided at Defendant's mother's house on Holly Street. At this location Alice, Defendant, Defendant's mother, and Alice's two younger sisters all shared a bedroom. On one occasion, after demonstrating how to smoke out of a glass object, Defendant instructed Alice to smoke a brown substance with his assistance. Defendant then instructed Alice to remove her pajamas and underwear and he began manipulating her "private" with one finger. Defendant said he was "going to finish [her] up" and then Alice "was going to do him." After instructing her to pull up her pants, Defendant directed Alice to put her hands on his "private parts" and make her hands "go up and down." At this point, Defendant was interrupted by Alice's younger sister entering the room, and Defendant covered himself with a towel. Later that day, Defendant made Alice touch him again for a short time in a bedroom, and she was "grossed out."
¶ 5 From April 2014 to September 2016, the parties resided in a house on Highland Road, but nothing "really happened" at this location because Alice's mother and sisters were always nearby. In September 2016, the parties returned to the house on Holly Street, before moving to Matilda Avenue in December 2017, where the parties resided at the time of Defendant's arrest in March 2018.
"2018 Incident"
¶ 6 On 17 March 2018, when Alice was nine, Defendant and Alice stayed up late watching anime cartoons after Alice's mother went to sleep. Defendant slid a hand down the front of her pants and began manipulating her "girl part" with four fingers, "hard, so it hurt[.]" This continued for approximately ten to twenty minutes.
¶ 7 The next day, while Alice's mother was at work, Alice took a nap wearing the same undergarments as the night before. Alice was subsequently awoken by her mother, who testified she observed a "bloodstain" on Alice's underwear slightly smaller than the size of a quarter. Alice said "[Defendant] touched down there[,]" and Alice's mother called the police.
¶ 8 That same evening, Alice was forensically interviewed by Beth Cali, an experienced forensic interviewer with over 1600 interviews, and medically examined by Beth Browning ("Browning"), a nurse practitioner at Lily's Place, a child advocacy center for children suspected of being abused. Alice's mother was interviewed by Detective Gutierrez of the Marion Police Department, who had also observed Alice's forensic interview. The interview with Alice's mother revealed that Defendant had a history of mental health episodes and failed to properly take prescribed medications, with two previous institutionalizations. During an episode in early 2018, Defendant told Alice's mother that he had touched and hurt Alice, but Alice's mother did not believe him, instead believing his statement was the product of a hallucination.
¶ 9 At trial, Browning was tendered and qualified as an expert in nursing with a specialty in child sexual abuse and assault examinations. Browning testified generally about how she conducts her medical examinations, and specifically about the questions she posed and answers received by Alice, as well as her conclusions from Alice's examination. Browning also illustrated her testimony regarding prepubescent female anatomy for the jury with two diagrams, which were admitted into evidence.
¶ 10 On 12 March 2021, Defendant was convicted of three counts of indecent liberties with a child, one count of first-degree sex offense for acts occurring in 2013, and one count of first-degree statutory sex offense for acts occurring in 2018. The trial court imposed a prison sentence of 192-to-291 months for the first-degree statutory sex offense, to run consecutively with a prison sentence of 192-to-291 months for the first-degree sex offense. The trial court imposed consecutively running 16-to-29 month prison sentences for each of the three indecent liberties convictions, to run concurrently with the other two judgments. The trial court also imposed satellite-based monitoring for life and sex offender registration. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court.
¶ 11 The issues before this Court are whether: (1) the trial court erred, abused its discretion, or plainly erred in admitting expert testimony by the certified Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner inferring that the child's words referred to her female sexual anatomy; and (2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the sex offense charges where the sufficiency of the evidence on the element of penetration is disputed.
¶ 13 On appeal, Defendant's primary argument concerns the sufficiency of the evidence of penetration, a necessary element of both first-degree sex offenses. The statute in effect at the time of the 2013 incident provided, "[a] person is guilty of a sexual offense in the first degree if the person engages in a sexual act: [w]ith 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." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.4(a)(1) ).
¶ 14 The statute applicable to the 2018 incident, which remains in force, provides, "[a] person is guilty of first-degree statutory sexual offense if the person engages in a sexual act 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." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.29 (2021).
¶ 15 Under North Carolina law, "[s]exual act" is defined in relevant part as, "the penetration, however slight, by any object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.20(4) (2021) (emphasis added). "Our appellate courts have held that for purposes of rape offenses, evidence that the defendant entered the labia is sufficient to prove the element of penetration." State v. Corbett, 264 N.C.App. 93, 97, 824 S.E.2d 875, 878 (2019) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
¶ 16 Since our review of Browning's testimony may impact the extent of evidence properly before the trial court for purposes of Defendant's motion to dismiss, we first examine Defendant's arguments that the trial court erred, abused its discretion, or plainly erred in admitting a portion of Browning's expert testimony, which Defendant contends was irrelevant and called for speculation.
¶ 17 As indicated in Defendant's reply brief, the pertinent exchange occurred as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial