State v. Grover
Decision Date | 20 March 2001 |
Docket Number | No. COA99-1447.,COA99-1447. |
Citation | 543 S.E.2d 179,142 NC App. 411 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Steven Murray GROVER, Sr. |
Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Celia Grasty Lata, for the State.
Thomas L. Currin, Oxford, for defendant-appellant.
Steven Murray Grover, Sr. ("defendant") appeals the jury's verdict convicting him of one count of statutory rape of a person thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen years old, nine counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, one count of incest between near relatives, and one count of felony child abuse by a sexual act. Due to the prejudicial error of the trial court's admittance of expert testimony that was neither based on a specialized knowledge or expertise nor assisted the jury in understanding or determining a fact in issue, we hold that defendant is entitled to a new trial.
Evidence presented at trial tended to show that defendant was married to his third wife, and had a child from each of his prior two marriages. Defendant's daughter (herein "M") was born on 26 March 1983; his son (herein "S") was born 29 August 1984. Apparently, defendant spent little time with the children during their formative years. However, when M was twelve and S was eleven, the two began spending weekends with defendant, and thereafter in the summer of 1996 defendant gained custody of S. Significantly, S
During March 1997, [S] was disciplined by [defendant] with a belt for misbehavior at school.... [S] showed the bruises to his mother ... who filed an action for a domestic violence protective order.... Pursuant to that order, effective for one year, [S's mother] was granted custody of [S] in May, 1997....
In August 1997, M began living with defendant, his third wife, and S. In November 1997, M told S's mother that she and S had been sexually abused by defendant. After which, S's mother took both M and S to Granville County Social Services where both children were interviewed and given medical examinations "for signs of physical trauma to their genital and anal areas." Neither child's exams revealed any physical abuse or trauma, and M's hymen was found to be intact. Defendant denied all allegations against him but did not testify at trial.
At trial, S testified that he took showers with defendant; that defendant masturbated in front of him and M; that after defendant ejaculated, defendant told him and M to touch and taste the semen; that defendant would have him and M play hide and go seek while the three were naked, and; that once, defendant put Vaseline between S's legs and then closed the legs onto defendant's own penis, moving it back and forth until defendant ejaculated, and all this, while M watched. S further testified that defendant and he watched XXX rated movies depicting both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse and the use of rubber penises ("dildos"). Likewise, M testified that at night defendant would come into her bedroom (which she shared with S) and touch her on her breasts and vagina. She stated that defendant touched her with his hands and penis and that defendant masturbated in front of her. M further testified that defendant once attempted vaginal penetration with his penis but she yelled because it hurt and he got up. She stated that she was afraid of defendant because he had threatened to hurt her mother if M told anyone about his actions.
Defendant preserved twelve assignments of error but makes only seven arguments to this Court. Therefore, we deem any assignment not argued, abandoned. N.C.R.App. P. 28(a). Defendant's first assignment of error is that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting the expert witness testimony of Jeanne Arnts and Susie Rowe, both of whom opined that the children had been sexually abused, when there was no physical evidence of such abuse. We agree with defendant that the trial court did so err and thus, defendant is entitled to a new trial.
It has long been the law in North Carolina that:
State v. Trent, 320 N.C. 610, 614, 359 S.E.2d 463, 465 (1987).
The record before us further reflects that later during the trial, Ms. Rowe (the pediatric nurse practitioner who conducted M's physical examination) also testified "[i]t was [her] conclusion that [M] was a sexually abused child." However, when confronted with questions of whether she found any physical evidence of abuse of M, Ms. Rowe was reluctant to admit that she found none. Regarding the anal exam, she testified:
(Emphasis added.) As to M's vaginal exam, defense counsel again had to inquire of Ms. Rowe several times before she would straightforwardly answer as to whether she did, in fact, find any physical evidence of sexual abuse:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. May
...“[t]estimony that a child has been ‘sexually abused’ based solely on interviews with the child are improper.” State v. Grover, 142 N.C.App. 411, 419, 543 S.E.2d 179, 183,aff'd,354 N.C. 354, 553 S.E.2d 679 (2001) (citation omitted). “However, an expert witness may testify, upon a proper foun......
-
State v. Bush
...regarding the victim's credibility." State v. Stancil, 355 N.C. 266, 267, 559 S.E.2d 788, 789 (2002). See also State v. Grover, 142 N.C.App. 411, 417-18, 543 S.E.2d 179, 183-84, aff'd, 354 N.C. 354, 553 S.E.2d 679 (2001); State v. Dick, 126 N.C.App. 312, 315, 485 S.E.2d 88, 90, disc. review......
-
State v. Hammett, COA05-377.
...testimony that "`[the victim] was sexually abused by [defendant]'" absent physical evidence of abuse); State v. Grover, 142 N.C.App. 411, 418-19, 543 S.E.2d 179, 183 (2001) (error to admit expert testimony that the child had been sexually abused where the expert opinion was based solely on ......
-
State v. Treadway
...266, 266-67, 559 S.E.2d 788, 789 (2002) ( per curiam )(citing State v. Trent, 320 N.C. 610, 359 S.E.2d 463 (1987), and State v. Grover, 142 N.C.App. 411, 543 S.E.2d 179, aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 354, 553 S.E.2d 679 (2001)). Where the expert testimony is based on a proper foundation, "[t]h......
-
Expert Testimony in North Carolina Criminal Trials in a Post-howerton World
...physical evidence to support testimony about her diagnosis and opinion that the victim was probably sexually abused). 85 State v. Grover, 543 S.E.2d 179, 183-84 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001), aff'd, 553, S.E.2d 679 (N.C. 2001); State v. Stancil, 559 S.E.2d 788, 789 (N.C. 86 State v. Kennedy, 357 S.E......