State v. Nova, COA23-883, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Sept. 17, 2024)

In this Gaston County case, defendant appealed his conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child, arguing error in admitting testimony under Rule of Evidence 404(b) that was dissimilar to the crime charged and unfairly prejudicial. The Court of Appeals found no error. 

In 2014, defendant fondled a youth member of his church during a worship practice. The minor victim initially reported the abuse to a youth leader at the church, and then learned that defendant had abused another minor in the church. At that point, the victim reported defendant to law enforcement. Before trial, the State moved to introduce evidence of the other youth member abused by defendant under Rule 404(b). The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that the previous abuse was sufficiently similar to the current case and the temporal proximity was “not so remote that it would render the evidence inadmissible in the present case.” Slip Op. at 3. 

Taking up defendant’s argument, the Court of Appeals first looked to State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127 (2012), for the similarity and temporal requirements applicable to Rule 404(b) evidence. The court concluded that the evidence here met those standards, as the two victims were both young boys of similar in age at the time of the acts, and defendant met and formed his relationships with both through the church. When considering proximity, the court noted “[h]ere, the modus operandi of the crime being tried is not only strikingly similar to [the other victim’s] testimony, but also occurred only two years earlier.” Slip Op. at 11. Having determined the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b), the court then moved to the Rule of Evidence 403 balancing test, determining that the trial court conducted a fair evaluation of the possible prejudice and provided a limiting instruction to “curtail[] the risk of unfair prejudice.” Id. at 13.