State v. Estes
| Decision Date | 03 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 8930SC1260,8930SC1260 |
| Citation | 99 N.C.App. 312,393 S.E.2d 158 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Andrew ESTES. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen. Lacy H. Thornburg by Asst. Atty. Gen. Elizabeth G. McCrodden and Associate Atty. Gen. Alexander M. Peters, Raleigh, for the State.
Whalen, Hay, Pitts, Hugenschmidt, Master, Devereux & Belser, P.A. by David G. Belser, Asheville, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant first assigns as error the trial court's failure to dismiss the charge of first degree sexual offense as defined by G.S. 14-27.4. Pursuant to G.S. 14-27.1, the term "sexual act" is defined in pertinent part as follows:
"Sexual act" means cunnilingus, fellatio, ananlingus, or anal intercourse, but does not include vaginal intercourse. Sexual act also means the penetration, however slight, by any object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body....
Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence of penetration and therefore the charge should have been dismissed. The defendant was accused of having anal intercourse and other sexual acts with a seven year old girl on numerous occasions in 1985 and again on several occasions in 1987. The prosecuting witness testified as follows regarding the 1985 incidents:
Later, when the child was testifying about the 1987 incidents, she stated:
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
A: Yes.
. . . . .
. . . . .
Defendant argues that the State's testimony that the defendant "stuck his thing" in the "back and front" of the child is insufficient evidence of penetration of the anal opening to uphold his conviction for first degree sexual offense for the 1985 incidents. There was no physical evidence and the child did not demonstrate on anatomically correct dolls what happened to her.
In State v. Hicks, 319 N.C. 84, 352 S.E.2d 424 (1987), the Supreme Court found that the charge of first degree sexual offense should not have been submitted to a jury where the victim testified that the defendant "put his penis in the back of me." However, in the present case, the victim did testify that the defendant put his penis in the "back" and went on to explain that she meant "where I go number two." The child's testimony, taken as a totality, is sufficient evidence that the defendant penetrated the anal opening in 1985. See State v. Fletcher, 322 N.C. 415, 423, 368 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1988); (Supreme Court held that a child's testimony that defendant "stuck his ding dong up her po po" was substantial evidence from which the jury could find that defendant had vaginal intercourse with the child victim, where the child defined "ding dong" as a penis and "po po" as a vagina).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the defendant's motion to dismiss was properly denied.
Defendant next asserts that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted first degree sexual offense. However, defense counsel failed to object to the failure to include the instruction. N.C.R.App. P 10(b)(2). Therefore, our review is under the "plain error" rule. State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 300 S.E.2d 375 (1983). In the present case, the defense counsel not only failed to request or object to the omission of the instruction, but actually concurred in the trial court's decision:
[defense attorney] I don't believe that the charge--I don't believe defendant--I'm trying to recall my recollection of some testimony. I don't believe the defendant said--they asked about did he touch up against her. He said no, only perhaps in process of turning around. I don't think that would constitute an "attempt" such that that would go on the attempt. My recollection of the evidence is such.
THE COURT: I would not give a charge on "attempt."
The trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury on this lesser included offense.
Finally, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in joining all of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re J.D.
...finding that penetration did occur. See State v. Sprouse , 217 N.C. App. 230, 237, 719 S.E.2d 234, 240 (2011) ; State v. Estes , 99 N.C. App. 312, 316, 393 S.E.2d 158, 160 (1990). However, in the instant case, the victim's statement is not ambiguous. Zane specifically states in his testimon......
-
State v. Darr
...A victim's testimony of sexual intercourse is enough to uphold a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss. State v. Estes, 99 N.C. App. 312, 316, 393 S.E.2d 158, 160 (1990) ; State v. Bruce, 315 N.C. 273, 281, 337 S.E.2d 510, 516 (1985) (stating a victim's testimony the defendant penetra......
-
State v. Combs
...to support a jury finding of anal penetration without “corroborative evidence (such as physiological or demonstrative evidence).” Id. In State v. Estes, although the prosecuting witness used ambiguous terms, we distinguished Hicks because she clarified her use of ambiguous terms by other te......
-
State v. Moore
...563, 383 S.E.2d at 422. The Green court held this evidence sufficient to withstand defendant's motion to dismiss. In State v. Estes, 99 N.C.App. 312, 393 S.E.2d 158 (1990), defendant there argued that the victim's testimony that defendant " 'stuck his thing' in the 'back and front' of the c......