In The Matter Of: M.C

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA11-153 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 December 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: M.C. Durham County No. 09 JB 000269 Appeal by juvenile from orders entered 10 February 2010 and 10 June 2010 by Judge Marcia H. Morey in Durham County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 August 2011. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special General Belinda A. Smith, for the State. Deputy Attorney Paul Y. K. Castle for the juvenile. ELMORE, Judge. M.C. (the juvenile) argues that the trial court erred by admitting testimony by a witness when the prosecution did not turn over documentation of its pretrial interviews with that witness. The juvenile asserts that the prosecution violated the rules discovery as and the of 903(A)(1) that set forth trial in court N.C. Gen. compounded Stat. the § error 15by -2admitting the testimony over objection. Because § 15-903(A)(1) does not apply to this case, we disagree. On 23 September 2009, the State filed two petitions against the juvenile in Durham County. delinquency The petitions alleged that the juvenile had committed first degree rape and first degree kidnapping when he was fourteen years old. adjudication hearing, J.C., as a witness. the State called the victim s At the nephew, The trial court asked the prosecutor if she had any written interview statements made by this witness, and the prosecutor replied that she did not. The juvenile objected, and the trial court overruled the objection. On appeal, the juvenile points to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A903(a)(1) to support his argument that the prosecutor was required to reduce any conversation with a witness to writing and to turn discovery. over that writing to the defense as part of Section 15A-903(a)(1) requires the State to reduce oral statements to written or recorded form, except that oral statements made by a witness to a prosecuting attorney outside the presence of a law enforcement officer or investigatorial assistant are not required to be in written or recorded form unless there is significantly new or different information in -3the oral statement from a prior statement made by the witness. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-903(a)(1) (2009). However, we need not determine if this exception applies to the case at hand because the entire statute section does not apply to the case at hand. Section 15A-901, the first section in Article 48, Discovery in the Superior Court, states that [t]his Article applies to cases jurisdiction of the superior court. (2009). within the original N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-901 The superior court does not have original jurisdiction over juvenile delinquency matters. Instead, the district court has original jurisdiction over delinquent juveniles. Stat. §§ 7B-1501(4), 7B-1601(a) (2009). N.C. Gen. Accordingly, § 15A-903 does not apply to juvenile delinquency cases. The Juvenile Code has its own discovery provision, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2300, which does not require the State to reduce oral statements to written or recorded form. Stat. § 7B-2300 (2009). See N.C. Gen. On appeal, the juvenile does not make any argument as to § 7B-2300, but, upon our own review of the statute, we conclude that the trial court did not err by permitting the State to offer a witness whose prior conversation with the prosecutor was not reduced to writing or recording and turned over to the juvenile. -4Accordingly, we hold that the juvenile received a trial free from error. As a final note, we admonish counsel for failing to follow Rules 3, 3.1, 4(e), and 9 of our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 3(b)(1) protects the identities of persons under the age of eighteen in juvenile matters pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B2602, including this matter. See N.C.R. App. P. 3(b)(1) (2011). Rule 3(b) states that the identity of persons under the age of eighteen at the time of the proceedings in the trial division shall be protected pursuant to Rule 3.1(b). Id. Rule 3.1(b) requires the parties to reference juveniles in covered cases only by their initials or pseudonyms in briefs, petitions, and other filings. N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(b) (2011). These substitution and redaction requirements do not apply to settled records on appeal, but any filing not subject to substitution and redaction requirements shall include the following notice on the first page of the document immediately beneath the title and in uppercase typeface: FILED PURSUANT TO RULE [3(b)(1)] . . .; SUBJECT TO PUBLIC INSPECTION ONLY BY ORDER OF A COURT OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. Id.; see also N.C.R. App. P. 9(a) (2011). In addition, Rule 3.1(b) provides: Filings in cases governed by this rule that are not subject to substitution and -5redaction requirements will not be published on the Court s electronic filing site and will be available to the public only with the permission of a court of the appellate division. In addition, the juvenile s address and social security number shall be excluded from all filings, documents, exhibits, or arguments with the exception of sealed verbatim transcripts submitted pursuant to Rule 9(c). Id. (emphasis added). Here, counsel failed to include the required notice on any of the briefs or the record. contains identifying As a result, the record, which information about the juvenile and his underage rape victim, was published on the Court s electronic filing site.1 Counsel also address from the record. failed to remove the juvenile s Protecting the identity of covered juveniles on appeal is paramount, particularly when one of the juveniles is an underage rape victim, see N.C.R. App. P. 4(e) (2009). Counsel should take care not to repeat these errors in the future. No error. Judges CALABRIA and STEELMAN concur. Report per Rule 30(e). 1 The record has since been removed from the electronic filing site.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.