State v. Stevens
| Decision Date | 06 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. COA20-421,COA20-421 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Claude Mordecia STEVENS, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Karen A. Blum, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katy Dickinson-Schultz, for Defendant-Appellant.
¶ 1 Defendant Claude Mordecia Stevens ("Defendant") appeals from two judgments entered after a jury found him guilty of eight counts of statutory rape, four counts of first-degree sex offense, and two counts of indecent liberties, all in connection with the alleged sexual abuse of two twin brothers over a period of several years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the first-degree sex offense charges and in allowing the jury to hear testimony from another alleged victim. After careful review, we hold Defendant has failed to demonstrate error.
¶ 2 The evidence introduced at trial discloses the following:
¶ 3 Defendant met P.L. ("Mrs. Lowe") 1 and her twin sons B.L. ("Brad") and A.L. ("Adam") at a YMCA pool in the summer of 2007. 2 Brad and Adam were 10 years old and between elementary and middle school. Mrs. Lowe and her sons saw Defendant at the pool often that summer and, over the coming months, visited Defendant at his home. By August of 2007, Defendant hired Mrs. Lowe as his administrative assistant for a school Defendant operated out of his house.
¶ 4 Though Defendant and Ms. Lowe never developed a romantic relationship, Mrs. Lowe grew increasingly trusting of Defendant, including trusting him with Brad and Adam. Mrs. Lowe and her children began to spend time with Defendant at his home after work. Eventually, Mrs. Lowe trusted Defendant enough to allow Brad and Adam to spend the night alone at his home. On these occasions, Defendant, Brad, and Adam would sometimes sit naked in Defendant's hot tub, and either Brad, Adam, or both would sleep with Defendant in his bed.
¶ 5 Mrs. Lowe and her sons also vacationed with Defendant between 2007 and 2015. For example, in late September 2007, Defendant, Mrs. Lowe, and her sons traveled to Disney World for a week to celebrate the twins’ 11th birthday. The Lowes and Defendant later made additional trips, including two cruises and multiple visits to amusement parks. Defendant also took Brad and Adam to bowling tournaments in New York and Illinois. Mrs. Lowe joined her sons on trips when they were young, but she allowed Brad and Adam to travel alone with Defendant as they grew older. Defendant would sometimes share a room with Brad or Adam on these vacations. Brad stayed in Defendant's room on the 2007 trip to Disney World.
¶ 6 When Brad and Adam were in middle school, Defendant began sexually abusing them. Defendant would isolate one of the boys in his bedroom, lock the door, and request a full-body massage in his underwear. Those massages eventually progressed to nude massages ending in fellatio or penetrative anal sex. Defendant sexually abused the boys frequently, including when Mrs. Lowe was present elsewhere in Defendant's house. Defendant also sexually abused Brad and Adam on his many trips with them and their mother.
¶ 7 Defendant stopped abusing Brad when the twins were in their freshman year of high school. Defendant continued abusing Adam after this time.
¶ 8 In the summer of 2016, when he was 19 years old, Brad suffered an emotional breakdown and told his girlfriend about Defendant's sexual abuse. Brad asked Adam if he had also been abused, and Adam disclosed that he had. The twins told their mother about the abuse a short time later, leading her to call police.
¶ 9 In July 2016, Brad and Adam spoke with police and Leigh Howell, a child abuse evaluation specialist at the child advocacy center SAFEchild, about Defendant's abuse. During a forensic interview with Ms. Howell, Brad stated that he thought Defendant began abusing him when he was 11 or 12 years old. A few minutes later in the same interview, Brad told Ms. Howell that he may have been between the ages of 12 and 13 when the abuse started. Adam told Ms. Howell that he was first abused by Defendant at age 12 or 13.
¶ 10 Defendant was subsequently indicted on two counts of indecent liberties with a child, 10 counts of statutory sex offense with a person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old, and 10 counts of first-degree sexual offense with a child.
¶ 11 During a pretrial hearing on 23 July 2019, the State moved under Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence to introduce the testimony of a witness, P. L. ("Patrick"), who also claimed to have been abused by Defendant as a boy. Patrick testified that when he was a 12-year-old boy scout, Defendant was one of his assistant scoutmasters and had a good relationship with Patrick's father, who was the troop scoutmaster. Patrick also testified that Defendant groped him during a 1999 scouting trip. Patrick, Defendant, and another scout were alone together in the woods for an orienteering exercise when Defendant isolated Patrick from the other scout and grabbed Patrick's genitals through his pants for about thirty seconds. When Defendant stopped, Patrick and the other scout ran away from Defendant, and the scouting trip concluded without further incident; Patrick did not report the fondling at that time out of shame. Defendant continued to be friendly with Patrick's parents, and Patrick's family was invited to a New Year's Eve party at Defendant's home later that year. At the party, Defendant told the children in attendance that they should enjoy his hot tub. Patrick's parents considered spending the night at Defendant's house, but Patrick convinced them to take the family home.
¶ 12 Following Patrick's testimony in the pre-trial hearing, the State argued that Patrick could testify at trial under Rule 404(b) based on a common scheme or plan, pointing out the following similarities: (1) Defendant gained access to Brad, Adam, and Patrick by befriending their parents and maintaining a good social relationship with them; (2) the three boys were all around 12 years of age during the events alleged; (3) the boys were of the same sex and race; (4) Defendant invited the children into his home and to spend the night there; and (5) the abuse included fondling the boys’ genitals. Defendant's counsel argued that Patrick's testimony was too dissimilar and distant to be admissible and was otherwise unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. The trial court ultimately agreed with the State and ruled that Patrick could testify in Defendant's trial.
¶ 13 Brad, Adam, and Mrs. Lowe all testified for the State at trial consistent with the above summary, except that Brad and Adam were unable to recall at what age the abuse began However, Brad testified that he believed most of the abuse took place in middle school when he would have been between ages 10 and 13, while Adam told the jury that he was "most likely" 12 years old at the time. Ms. Howell also testified for the State and video recordings of her forensic interviews with the twins were published to the jury.
¶ 14 Patrick testified as a Rule 404(b) witness consistent with his pretrial voir dire testimony. Defendant's counsel lodged an objection to Patrick's testimony, which was overruled by the trial court.
¶ 15 After resting its case, the State voluntarily dismissed several charges, namely: (1) two charges of statutory sex offense with a person who is 13, 14, or 15 relating to Brad; (2) two charges of first-degree sexual offense with a child relating to Brad; and (3) four charges of first-degree sex offense with a child relating to Adam. Defendant moved to dismiss the remaining charges, and that motion was denied. Defendant then testified in his own defense; afterwards, the trial court stated that "[a]t the close of all the evidence, the defendant's renewed motion to dismiss ... is denied," though it does not appear from the transcript that Defendant made such a renewed motion on the record.
¶ 16 The jury received its charge and found Defendant guilty on all remaining counts. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of 240 to 297 months imprisonment and gave notice of appeal in open court.
¶ 17 Defendant presents two principal arguments on appeal, asserting the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion to dismiss the first-degree sex offense charges as to Brad for insufficient evidence; and (2) permitting Patrick to testify under Rules 404(b) and 403. Defendant has failed to demonstrate error under both arguments.
¶ 18 We review the denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence de novo. State v. Phachoumphone , 257 N.C. App. 848, 861, 810 S.E.2d 748, 756 (2018). Denial is proper when "there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged ..., and (2) of defendant's being the perpetrator of such offense." State v. Scott , 356 N.C. 591, 595, 573 S.E.2d 866, 868 (2002). Substantial evidence State v. Hunt , 365 N.C. 432, 436, 722 S.E.2d 484, 488 (2012). Further, "[a]ny contradictions or conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the State, and evidence unfavorable to the State is not considered." State v. Miller , 363 N.C. 96, 98, 678 S.E.2d 592, 594 (2009) (citations omitted).
¶ 19 A trial court's decision to admit evidence under Rule 404(b) is likewise reviewed de novo. State v. Beckelheimer , 366 N.C. 127, 130, 726 S.E.2d 156, 159 (2012). The rule is a "general rule of inclusion," State v. Coffey , 326 N.C. 268, 278, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990),...
To continue reading
Request your trial