Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

About

This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.

Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.

Instructions

Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).

E.g., 12/05/2021
E.g., 12/05/2021
State v. Davis, 368 N.C. 794 (Apr. 15, 2016)

Modifying and affirming the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals below, 239 N.C. App. 522 (2015), in this child sexual assault case, the court held that expert testimony about general characteristics of child sexual assault victims and the possible reasons for delayed reporting of such allegations is expert opinion testimony subject to disclosure in discovery under G.S. 15A-903(a)(2). The court rejected the State’s argument that because its witnesses did not give expert opinion testimony and only testified to facts, the discovery requirements of G.S. 15A-903(a)(2) were not triggered. Recognizing “that determining what constitutes expert opinion testimony requires a case-by-case inquiry in which the trial court (or a reviewing court) must look at the testimony as a whole and in context,” the court concluded that the witnesses gave expert opinions that should have been disclosed in discovery. Specifically, both offered expert opinion testimony about the characteristics of sexual abuse victims. In this respect, their testimony went beyond the facts of the case and relied on inferences by the experts to reach the conclusion that certain characteristics are common among child sexual assault victims. Similarly, both offered expert opinion testimony explaining why a child victim might delay reporting abuse. Here again the experts drew inferences and gave opinions explaining that these and other unnamed patients had been abuse victims and delayed reporting the abuse for various reasons. The court continued: “These views presuppose (i.e, opine) that the other children the expert witnesses observed had actually been abused. These are not factual observations; they are expert opinions.” However, the court found that the defendant failed to show that the error was prejudicial.

Show Table of Contents