(1) Reversing a decision of the court of appeals in State v. Hunt, 211 N.C. App. 452 (May 3, 2011), the court held that expert testimony was not required for the State to establish that the victim had a mental disability for purposes of second-degree sexual offense. In the opinion below, the court of appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction on grounds that there was insufficient evidence as to the victim’s mental disability, reasoning: “where the victim’s IQ falls within the range considered to be ‘mental retardation[,]’ but who is highly functional in her daily activities and communication, the State must present expert testimony as to the extent of the victim’s mental disability as defined by [G.S.] 14-27.5.” The supreme court, however, found the evidence sufficient. First, it noted, there was evidence that the victim was mentally disabled. The victim had an IQ of 61, was enrolled in special education classes, a teacher assessed her to be in the middle level of intellectually disabled students, and she required assistance to function in society. Second, the victim’s condition rendered her substantially incapable of resisting defendant’s advances. The victim didn’t know the real reason why the defendant asked her to come into another room, his initial acts of touching scared her because she didn’t know what he was going to do, she was shocked when he exposed himself, she was frightened when he forced her to perform fellatio and when she raised her head to stop, he forced it back down to his penis. Finally, there was evidence that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known about the victim’s disability. Specifically, his wife testified that she had discussed the victim’s condition with the defendant. The court emphasized that “expert testimony is not necessarily required to establish the extent of a victim’s mental capacity to consent to sexual acts when a defendant is charged with second-degree sexual offense pursuant to section 14-27.5.” (2) Reversing the court of appeals, the court held that the State presented sufficient evidence of crime against nature. The defendant conceded knowing that the victim was 17 years old. For the reasons discussed above, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that the victim’s conditions rendered her substantially incapable of resisting the defendant’s advances. All of this evidence indicates that the sexual acts were not consensual. In addition, the court noted, the record suggests that the acts were coercive, specifically pointing to the defendant’s conduct of forcing the victim’s head to his penis. The court emphasized that “expert testimony is not necessarily required to establish the extent of a victim’s mental capacity to consent to sexual acts when a defendant is charged with . . . crime against nature.”