Title: State v. Alonzo

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
No. 288PA18 
Filed 28 February 2020 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
v. 
EDWARD M. ALONZO 
 
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision 
of the Court of Appeals, 819 S.E.2d 584 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018), affirming judgments 
entered on 11 January 2017 by Judge Gale M. Adams in Superior Court, Cumberland 
County. On 5 December 2018, the Supreme Court allowed both the State’s petition 
for discretionary review and defendant’s conditional petition for discretionary review 
as to an additional issue. Heard in the Supreme Court on 5 November 2019.  
 
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy 
Attorney General, and Ellen A. Newby, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
State-appellant. 
 
G. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate 
Defendant, for defendant-appellee. 
 
 
HUDSON, Justice. 
 
 
Here, we review the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in its 
instruction to the jury on the definition of “sexual act” under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2), 
which sets out the offense of felony child abuse by sexual act; and (2) whether the 
trial court’s instruction on felony child abuse by sexual act amounted to plain error. 
We affirm the Court of Appeals decision upholding defendant’s convictions. However, 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-2- 
we modify that decision because the trial court did not err by not instructing the jury 
on the definition of “sexual act” according to N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4).1 Therefore, we 
need not—and do not—address the Court of Appeals’ prejudice analysis under the 
plain error standard. Accordingly, the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court 
Judges Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions need not turn its attention to the 
definition of “sexual act” in N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2) as it was instructed to do by the 
Court of Appeals.  
Factual and Procedural Background 
On 3 January 2017, the Cumberland County grand jury returned bills of 
indictment charging defendant with committing the following crimes against his 
daughter, Sandy2: (1) taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of N.C.G.S. § 
14-202.1(a)(1)-(2); (2) felony child abuse by sexual act in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-
318.4(a2); and (3) first-degree statutory sexual offense.  
At trial, the evidence showed that defendant engaged in a sustained pattern of 
sexually abusing Sandy while the family—which included Sandy’s mother and 
Sandy’s two siblings—lived in Fayetteville, North Carolina, during the years of 1990 
to 1993.  
                                            
1 This statute was recodified in 2015 as N.C.G.S. § 14-27.20(4). 
2 The Court of Appeals used the pseudonym “Sandy” to refer to the victim in this case. 
State v. Alonzo, 819 S.E.2d 584, 586 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).   We will do the same. 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-3- 
Near the end of the trial, the trial court instructed the jury, in pertinent part, 
on the charge of felony child abuse by sexual act. At the time that defendant 
committed the underlying acts of sexual misconduct, the General Statutes provided 
that a defendant committed felony child abuse by sexual act when the defendant was 
“[a]ny parent or legal guardian of a child less than 16 years of age who commits or 
allows the commission of any sexual act upon a juvenile . . . .” N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2) 
(1990) (emphasis added). In instructing the jury, the trial court defined “sexual act” 
as “an immoral, improper or indecent act by the defendant upon [Sandy] for the 
purpose of arousing, gratifying sexual desire.”  
On 11 January 2017, the jury found defendant (1) guilty of taking indecent 
liberties with a child; (2) guilty of felony child abuse by sexual act; but (3) not guilty 
of first-degree statutory sexual offense. Defendant appealed his convictions to the 
Court of Appeals.  
At the Court of Appeals, defendant contended, in pertinent part, that the trial 
court committed plain error in defining “sexual act” and did not accurately define the 
phrase in the context of felony child abuse under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2). Specifically, 
defendant argued that prior decisions of the Court of Appeals recognized that 
N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) provided the correct definition of “sexual act” for an offense 
under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2). N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) provided that 
 “Sexual act” means cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus, or 
anal intercourse, but does not include vaginal intercourse. 
Sexual act also means the penetration, however slight, by 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-4- 
any object into the genital or anal opening of another 
person’s body: provided, that it shall be an affirmative 
defense that the penetration was for accepted medical 
purposes. 
 
N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) (1990). Defendant further contended that the trial court’s error 
in failing to instruct the jury according to the definition of “sexual act” under N.C.G.S. 
§ 14-27.1(4) constituted plain error.  
The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant that its prior case law recognized 
that N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) provided the correct definition of “sexual act” for felony 
child abuse under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2). State v. Alonzo, 819 S.E.2d 584, 587 (N.C. 
Ct. App. 2018). The Court of Appeals noted that the trial court’s definition of “sexual 
act” was one that “track[ed], almost precisely, the language of the North Carolina 
Pattern Jury Instruction, N.C.P.I.—Crim. 239.55B, the suggested instructions for the 
charge of felonious child abuse.” Id. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that its 
prior decision in State v. Lark held that N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) contained the proper 
definition of “sexual act” under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2). Id. (citing State v. Lark, 198 
N.C. App. 82, 88, 678 S.E.2d 693, 698 (2009)). The Court of Appeals then reasoned 
that even though its later decision in State v. McClamb conflicted with Lark by failing 
to extend the definition of “sexual act” in N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) to N.C.G.S. § 14-
318.4(a2), id. (citing State v. McClamb, 234 N.C. App. 753, 758-59, 760 S.E.2d 337, 
341 (2014)), it was bound by its decision in Lark because Lark was the earlier 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-5- 
precedent. Id. (citing State v. Meadows, 806 S.E.2d 682, 693 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017), 
aff’d in part, 371 N.C. 742 (2018)).  
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to 
instruct the jury according to the definition of “sexual act” contained in N.C.G.S. § 
14-27.1(4). Alonzo, 819 S.E.2d at 587. However, it ultimately held that the trial court’s 
error did not amount to plain error. Id. at 588–89. Both defendant and the State 
sought discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ opinion. We allowed both parties 
petitions for discretionary review on 5 December 2018. However, in allowing 
defendant’s petition for discretionary review, we limited our review to the first issue 
listed in his petition. Pursuant to the parties’ petitions, we review (1) whether the 
trial court erred in instructing the jury on the charge of felony child abuse by sexual 
act by not defining “sexual act” according to the definition contained in N.C.G.S. § 14-
27.1(4); and (2) whether the trial court’s error amounted to plain error. Because we 
conclude that the trial court did not err by not instructing the jury on the meaning of 
“sexual act” according to the definition found in N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4), we modify and 
affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. Therefore, we need not—and do not—
address the Court of Appeals’ prejudice analysis under the plain error standard. 
Analysis  
“This Court reviews the decision of the Court of Appeals to determine whether 
it contains any errors of law.” State v. Melton, 371 N.C. 750, 756, 821 S.E.2d 424, 428 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-6- 
(2018) (citing N.C. R. App. P. 16(a); State v. Mumford, 364 N.C. 394, 398, 699 S.E.2d 
911, 914 (2010)).  
Because the Court of Appeals rested its holding that N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) 
provided the definition of “sexual act” for an offense under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2) on 
the reasoning of its prior decision in Lark, it did not engage in a statutory construction 
analysis to reach its determination. See Alonzo, 819 S.E.2d at 587 (citing Lark, 198 
N.C. App. at 88, 678 S.E.2d at 698). We are not bound by the Court of Appeals’ 
decision in Lark, and the issue of whether N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) provides the 
definition of “sexual act” applicable to an offense under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2) is an 
issue of first impression for this Court. Accordingly, we now engage in a statutory 
construction analysis to determine whether subsection 14-27.1(4) provides the 
applicable definition of “sexual act.”  
“Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room 
for judicial construction and the courts must construe the statute using its plain 
meaning.” Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc., 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 
136 (1990) (citing Utils. Comm’n v. Edmisten, 291 N.C. 451, 232 S.E.2d 184 (1977)). 
“But where a statute is ambiguous, judicial construction must be used to ascertain 
the legislative will.” Id. at 209, 388 S.E.2d at 136-37 (citing Young v. Whitehall Co., 
229 N.C. 360, 49 S.E.2d 797 (1948)). Accordingly, in construing the meaning of 
ambiguous statutory language, our task is “to ascertain the intent of the legislature 
and to carry out such intention to the fullest extent.” Id. at 209, 388 S.E.2d at 137 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-7- 
(citing Buck v. Guar. Co., 265 N.C. 285, 144 S.E.2d 34 (1965)). Under a statutory 
construction analysis, legislative intent “must be found from the language of the act, 
its legislative history and the circumstances surrounding its adoption which throw 
light upon the evil sought to be remedied.” Id. at 209, 388 S.E.2d at 137 (quoting Milk 
Comm’n v. Food Stores, 270 N.C. 323, 332, 154 S.E.2d 548, 555 (1967)). We have 
further stated that “when technical terms or terms of art are used in a statute they 
are presumed to have been used with their technical meaning in mind, absent a 
legislative intent to the contrary.” Black v. Littlejohn, 312 N.C. 626, 639, 325 S.E.2d 
469, 478 (1985) (quoting In re Appeal of Martin, 286 N.C. 66, 77–78, 209 S.E.2d 766, 
774 (1974)).  
Here, defendant argues that we should affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding 
concerning the definition of “sexual act” because “sexual act” is a technical term that 
takes its meaning from N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4). Specifically, defendant argues that 
when N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2) was enacted, N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1 was already in effect 
and provided a narrow, statutory definition of “sexual act.” Accordingly, defendant 
asserts that the legislature was aware of this technical definition of “sexual act” at 
the time that it enacted N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2), and we should assume that the 
legislature intended to incorporate it into the crime of felony child abuse by sexual 
act.  
We begin by noting that N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) did provide a definition of 
“sexual act” at the time that the legislature enacted N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2). See 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-8- 
N.C.G.S. 14-27.1(4) (1983); see also An Act Entitled the Child Protection Act of 1983, 
ch. 916, § 1, 1983 N.C. Sess. Laws 1265, 1265 (adding subsection (a2) to N.C.G.S. § 
14-318.4). However, assuming arguendo that N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) provided a 
technical definition of “sexual act,” we conclude that the legislative history of the 
statute provides dispositive evidence of “a legislative intent to the contrary” of 
defendant’s argument that its definition of “sexual act” applies in the context of an 
offense under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2).  Black, 312 N.C. at 639, 325 S.E.2d at 478 
(quoting In re Appeal of Martin, 286 N.C. at 77–78, 209 S.E.2d at 774). 
The legislative history of N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) reveals that the legislature only 
intended for the statute’s definition of “sexual act” to apply within its own article.  
Specifically, N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1 was enacted as part of a new article to Chapter 14 of 
the General Statutes—Article 7A. An Act to Clarify, Modernize and Consolidate the 
Law of Sex Offenses, ch. 682. § 1, 1979 N.C. Sess. Laws 725, 725. When it was enacted, 
N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1 expressly limited the applicability of all of its definitions—
including the definition of “sexual act”—to Article 7A. Id. (“As used in this Article, 
unless the context requires otherwise . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also N.C.G.S. § 14-
27.1 (1980).  The language limiting the applicability of the statute’s definitions to 
Article 7A was still present when subsection (a2) of N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4 was added in 
1983. See N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1 (1983); see also An Act Entitled the Child Protection Act 
of 1983, ch. 916, § 1, 1983 N.C. Sess. Laws 1265, 1265. 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-9- 
Further, the legislature amended N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1 three times after N.C.G.S. 
§ 14-318.4(a2) was enacted, and the legislature did not remove the language limiting 
the applicability of the statute’s definitions to Article 7A any of those times.3 
Additionally, in 2015, when the legislature recodified Article 7A as Article 7B—and 
recodified N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1 as N.C.G.S. § 14-27.20—the legislature did not remove 
the language limiting the applicability of the statute’s definitions to the new article.4 
Further, the current version of the statute continues to limit the application of its 
definitions to Article 7B. See N.C.G.S. § 14-27.20 (2017) (“The following definitions 
apply in this Article . . . .”).5 Therefore, the legislative history demonstrates that from 
the time N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1 was enacted in 1980, until it took its current form in 
N.C.G.S. § 14-27.20, the legislature intended for the definitions in the statute to apply 
only within the respective article. Accordingly, it was error for the Court of Appeals 
                                            
3 See An Act to Make Technical Corrections and Conforming Changes to the General 
Statutes as Recommended by the General Statutes Commission; to Restore the Definition of 
Family Care Home to its Original Language as Recommended by the General Statutes 
Commission; and to Make Various Other Changes to the General Statutes and Session Laws, 
S.L. 2002-159, § 2.(a), 2002 N.C. Sess. Laws 635, 635; see also An Act to Create the Offense 
of Sexual Battery, S.L. 2003-252, § 1, 2003 N.C. Sess. Laws 426, 426; An Act to Protect North 
Carolina’s Children/Sex Offender Law Changes, S.L. 2006-247, § 12.(a), 2006 N.C. Sess. Laws 
1065, 1074.  
4 See An Act to Reorganize, Rename, and Renumber Various Sexual Offenses to Make 
Them More Easily Distinguishable From One Another as Recommended by the North 
Carolina Court of Appeals in “State of North Carolina v. Slade Weston Hicks, Jr.,” and to 
Make Other Technical Changes, S.L. 2015-181, §§ 1, 2, 2015 N.C. Sess. Laws 460, 460.  
5 See also An Act to Update the General Statutes of North Carolina with People First 
Language by Changing the Phrase “Mental Retardation” to “Intellectual Disability” in 
Certain Sections and to Make Other People First Language Amendments and Technical 
Amendments in Those Sections, as Recommended by the General Statutes Commission, S.L. 
2018-47, § 4.(a), 2018 N.C. Sess. Laws 457, 464.  
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-10- 
to conclude that the definition of “sexual act” contained in N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) was 
applicable to offenses under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2), which is contained in a separate 
article, Article 39.   
Moreover, we have interpreted the definition of “sexual act” in N.C.G.S. § 14-
27.1(4) as arising from the specific elements of the crimes listed in Article 7A. See 
State v. Lucas, 302 N.C. 342, 346, 275 S.E.2d 433, 436 (1981). “It is noted that all 
sexual acts specifically enumerated in the statute relate to sexual activity involving 
parts of the human body.” Id. “The only sexual act excluded from the statutory 
definition relates to vaginal intercourse, a necessary omission because vaginal 
intercourse is an element of the crimes of first and second degree rape which are 
defined in [the relevant statutes].” Id. “The words ‘sexual act’ do not appear in these 
rape statutes. The words do appear in [N.C.]G.S. [§] 14-27.4 and [N.C.]G.S. [§] 14-
27.5 which define the crimes of first and second degree ‘sexual offense.’ ” Id. The fact 
that the definition of “sexual act” in N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) arose from the specific 
elements of other crimes in Article 7A is a further reason to reject the proposition 
that N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4) provides a definition of “sexual act” that is applicable to 
offenses under N.C.G.S. § 14-318.4(a2).  
Accordingly, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the 
trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “sexual act” 
according to N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4). In so concluding, we decline to address defendant’s 
argument that the trial court’s instruction on the definition of “sexual act” was 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-11- 
erroneous because it seemed to match the definition of indecent liberties under 
N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1 and, accordingly, it was overly broad. Assuming arguendo that 
defendant properly raised this issue at the Court of Appeals, defendant did not 
present this issue in his petition for discretionary review. N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) 
(“Similarly, issues properly presented for review in the Court of Appeals, but not then 
stated in the notice of appeal or the petition accepted by the Supreme Court for review 
and discussed in the new briefs required by Rules 14(d)(1) and 15(g)(2) to be filed in 
the Supreme Court for review by that Court, are deemed abandoned.” (emphases 
added)). The only issue listed in defendant’s petition for discretionary review that this 
Court accepted for review was “[w]hether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that 
the erroneous instruction on the child abuse by sexual act charge was not sufficiently 
prejudicial to warrant relief under the plain error standard.” Defendant’s challenge 
to the Court of Appeals’ holding under its prejudice analysis did not present the 
additional assignment of error that the trial court erred by giving a definition of 
“sexual act” that seemed to match the definition for indecent liberties under N.C.G.S. 
§ 14-202.1.   
Further, the only issue listed in the State’s petition for discretionary review 
was the following: “Did the Court of Appeals err in holding the trial court erred in 
following the pattern jury instructions for felony child abuse by sexual act because 
these instructions are purportedly erroneous and require revision?” The sole basis for 
the Court of Appeals’ holding was its determination that “sexual act” in N.C.G.S. § 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-12- 
14-318.4(a2) must be defined according to the definition set out in N.C.G.S. § 14-
27.1(4).  Alonzo, 819 S.E.2d at 587. Therefore, the State’s petition for discretionary 
review did not present the issue of whether the trial court’s instruction was erroneous 
because it seemed to match the definition for indecent liberties under N.C.G.S. § 14-
202.1. Because that issue was not presented in either of the parties’ petitions for 
discretionary review, it is not properly before this Court. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(a). 
To the extent that defendant’s argument on that issue is now raising a constitutional 
challenge to the trial court’s instruction, “this Court has consistently held that 
‘[c]onstitutional questions not raised and passed on by the trial court will not 
ordinarily be considered on appeal.’ ” State v. Meadows, 371 N.C. 742, 749, 821 S.E.2d 
402, 407 (2018) (quoting State v. Davis, 364 N.C. 297, 301, 698 S.E.2d 65, 67 (2010)). 
Therefore, defendant’s failure to object to the jury instruction and raise a 
constitutional issue at trial is another reason that the Court declines to review this 
additional issue.  
Conclusion 
 
Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding defendant’s 
convictions. However, we modify the decision of the Court of Appeals because we hold 
that the trial court did not err by not instructing the jury on the definition of “sexual 
act” according to N.C.G.S. § 14-27.1(4). Therefore, we need not—and do not—address 
the Court of Appeals’ prejudice analysis under the plain error standard. Accordingly, 
the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges Committee on Pattern Jury 
STATE V. ALONZO 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-13- 
Instructions need not turn its attention to the definition of “sexual act” in N.C.G.S. § 
14-318.4(a2), as it was instructed to do by the Court of Appeals. 
 
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.