In this Rowan County case, defendant appealed his convictions for statutory rape of a child fifteen years old or younger, statutory sex offense with a child fifteen years old or younger, and indecent liberties with a child, arguing (1) error in admitting an hour-long video interview of the victim as substantive evidence, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals found no error and no ineffective assistance of counsel.

In the fall of 2017, defendant began having sexual contact with the victim, a fifteen-year-old girl who was friends with his daughter. The victim attended church with defendant’s family and frequently spent the night at his house. Eventually the relationship progressed to intercourse, and defendant told the victim he had received a vasectomy. Law enforcement learned of the relationship, and the victim was taken to a child advocacy center for a recorded interview with a forensic interviewer. At trial, the State introduced the hour-long interview as Exhibit 2, and the trial court overruled defendant’s objection to hearsay, ruling the video was admissible under Rule of Evidence 803(4) (Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment). The State also introduced a photo from defendant’s phone of a “home vasectomy test” as Exhibit 3, and referenced this photo during closing argument to support the idea defendant was showing the photo to the victim to alleviate her concerns about intercourse. Defendant did not object to the photo or the closing argument.

Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals examined the relevant precedent for Rule 803(4), including State v. McLaughlin, 246 N.C. App. 306 (2016), a case where “statements made by a child victim during a videotaped interview to a nurse at a child advocacy center were admissible hearsay,” and several other cases that defined the lines of admissibility for child victim interviews. Slip Op. at 11. After establishing the bounds of the hearsay exception, the court explored the interview in question, concluding that the victim knew she was giving statements for medical diagnosis or treatment, the interview occurred along with a medical examination, the interviewer’s questions were primarily for attending to the victim’s health and safety, and “[the victim’s] statements were reasonably pertinent to her diagnosis and treatment.” Id. at 16. These factors supported admitting the recording under Rule 803(4), and the court found no error.

Moving to (2), defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective because they failed to object to the admission of Exhibit 3 and the references to it during the State’s closing argument. The court disagreed, explaining that defendant could not demonstrate prejudice because admission of the photo was proper, and an adequate evidentiary basis supported the closing argument (i.e., the admitted photo along with supplementary testimony).