Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. DOISEY.
Citations: 532 S.E.2d 240; 138 N.C. App. 620; 2000 N.C. App. LEXIS 779Docket: COA97-982
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; July 5, 2000; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
Robert Stevenson Doisey was found guilty of two counts of first-degree statutory sex offense against twelve-year-old D.H. The offenses occurred in December 1995 and January 1996 while D.H. was living with her mother, Nannie B. Gauldin, who was also Doisey's live-in girlfriend. D.H. testified that Doisey coerced her into removing her clothing and sexually assaulted her on two occasions. After the second incident, D.H. disclosed the abuse to her mother, who reported it to the police, leading to Doisey's arrest. Gauldin testified that she discovered Doisey in D.H.'s room during the second incident and later found several videotapes in her home, which she turned over to law enforcement. An investigator, William Otis Wheeler, confirmed that these videotapes contained footage of individuals, including Doisey, in the bathroom. The camcorder used to record the footage was found in a table next to the toilet. The trial included testimony and evidence that supported D.H.'s account, and there were no objections to the admission of the videotapes and camcorder evidence during the proceedings. Defendant's counsel cross-examined Wheeler about the photographs and the camcorder setup in the table, as well as the contents of the videotapes. During the trial, Defendant denied allegations of sexual abuse made by D.H., stating he disciplined her for school misbehavior and had informed Gauldin of his intention to move out. He claimed that Gauldin was aware of the camcorder's placement in the bathroom and detailed how he connected it. While the appeal was pending, Defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief under N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1415, arguing for a new trial based on D.H.'s recantation of her testimony. The court remanded the case to the Superior Court of Halifax County for hearings on this motion, which were held on 1 July 1998 and 13 December 1999. On 3 January 2000, the trial court denied the motion, finding that D.H. had signed an affidavit claiming she testified falsely, but later affirmed her original testimony was correct. The court determined that her recantation was influenced by pressure from Defendant's acquaintances and her embarrassment over the events discussed in court. The trial court concluded that it was not reasonably satisfied that D.H.'s original testimony was false, leading to the denial of Defendant's motion for appropriate relief. The appellate issues included whether Defendant waived objections regarding the videotapes, if the testimony was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, and whether the trial court abused its discretion in its ruling on the motion for appropriate relief. To preserve issues for appeal, a party must timely present objections or motions to the trial court, meaning that prior admission of evidence without objection waives the right to contest similar evidence later. Defendant in State v. Campbell challenged the admissibility of testimony regarding camcorders and videotapes used to record individuals entering and exiting a bathroom, asserting that such evidence was inadmissible under Rules 403 and 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court noted that Defendant had initially allowed the admission of this evidence without objection and subsequently testified about it, thus waiving his right to contest it later. The State argued that the camcorder's use was relevant to demonstrate Defendant’s intent to exploit children. However, the court found that the evidence did not directly relate to the charges against Defendant, as it did not show a plan or scheme to sexually assault the victim, D.H. Consequently, the admission of this evidence constituted an error under Rule 404(b). For the error to qualify as "plain error," Defendant needed to demonstrate that it likely affected the jury's guilty verdict. The testimony from D.H. detailed multiple instances of sexual assault by Defendant, which provided sufficient evidence for conviction independent of the erroneously admitted evidence. Thus, while the admission of the videotape evidence was found to be incorrect, it did not meet the threshold for plain error impacting the jury's decision. Gauldin and Wheeler testified that D.H. made statements consistent with her trial testimony about the Defendant's actions. The court found that the admission of testimony regarding videotapes and a camcorder did not significantly affect the jury's verdict, ruling it was not plain error. The court rejected the Defendant's claim that the trial court's findings did not support the conclusion that it was not reasonably satisfied that D.H.'s original testimony was false. The criteria for granting a new trial based on recanted testimony require the court to be reasonably satisfied that the testimony was false and that its absence could have changed the trial's outcome. D.H. had signed an affidavit claiming her trial testimony was false but later stated at a hearing that she did so under pressure from others and reaffirmed her original testimony. The trial court found her embarrassment regarding the events led her to initially deny them, but upheld the validity of her trial testimony. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for appropriate relief. The Defendant failed to substantiate his remaining claims and did not raise certain constitutional arguments at the trial level, leading to their abandonment. The court affirmed that the trial court had jurisdiction, as the indictment met statutory requirements for a short-form indictment.