Title: State v. Betts

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-68 
No. 376A19 
Filed 11 June 2021 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
v. 
ERVAN L. BETTS 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 
the Court of Appeals, 267 N.C. App. 272 (2019), finding no plain error after appeal 
from a judgment entered on 23 March 2018 by Judge R. Stuart Albright in Superior 
Court, Forsyth County. On 28 February 2020, the Supreme Court allowed defendant’s 
petition for discretionary review to review an additional issue not addressed by the 
Court of Appeals. Heard in the Supreme Court on 22 March 2021. 
 
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy 
Attorney General, and Heyward Earnhardt, Solicitor General Fellow, for the 
State-appellee. 
 
Craig M. Cooley for defendant-appellant. 
 
 
BARRINGER, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
Defendant was convicted of three counts of indecent liberties with a child. 
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in a divided opinion held that 
defendant had a trial free from prejudicial error. After careful review, we modify and 
affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
I. 
Background 
¶ 2 
 
When B.C. 1  was born in 2013, illegal drugs were found in her system, which 
prompted the involvement of the Forsyth County Department of Social Services 
(DSS). On 25 October 2013, DSS conducted an interview of M.C., the seven-year-old 
sister of B.C., and M.C. informed the social worker, Melodie Archie, that defendant 
touched her inappropriately. During this time, defendant was in a relationship with 
M.C. and B.C.’s mother. When the social worker asked additional questions, M.C. 
denied being touched inappropriately but then described domestic violence incidents 
between defendant and her mother. 
¶ 3 
 
Archie testified on behalf of the State that she conducted a follow-up interview 
at M.C.’s elementary school where M.C. described incidents of defendant 
inappropriately touching her. Archie referred M.C. to an advocacy center and 
contacted the Winston-Salem Police Department. M.C. went to the child advocacy 
center in November 2013, where she underwent a forensic interview conducted by 
Fulton McSwain. 
¶ 4 
 
McSwain wrote a report that was admitted into evidence showing that during 
the forensic interview at the advocacy center, M.C. described incidents of domestic 
violence between defendant and her mother, two specific incidents of defendant 
                                            
1 Initials are used to protect the identities of B.C. and M.C., minor children, who are 
involved in the case. 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
inappropriately touching her, and one incident where defendant slapped her on the 
leg so hard that he left a hand imprint and then said to her, “F**k you b**ch.” M.C. 
also relayed specific incidents of domestic violence she witnessed between her mother 
and defendant, which included defendant pushing her mother into a counter and a 
closet, defendant punching her mother and causing her to have a black eye, and 
defendant bringing a gun to her mother’s residence and attempting to break into her 
mother’s apartment. 
¶ 5 
 
While M.C. only described in detail two specific incidents of inappropriate 
touching by defendant, M.C. explained that defendant kept on touching her private 
parts over and over again, but she could not remember how many times defendant 
had inappropriately touched her. The two specific incidents of inappropriate touching 
that M.C. described were defendant rubbing M.C.’s vagina beneath her underwear 
and defendant touching M.C.’s breasts. At the conclusion of the interview, the 
interviewer documented that M.C. “reported to being truthful and did not appear to 
display any overt signs of deception.” 
¶ 6 
 
In December 2013, M.C. began seeing Mary Katherine Mazzola,2 a licensed 
clinical social worker with DSS, who worked as a therapist in the clinical services 
unit. Mazzola testified at trial that M.C. was referred to her based on M.C.’s exposure 
                                            
2 While there are discrepancies in how Mazzola’s name is spelled, we will use the 
spelling of her name as documented in the Court of Appeals opinion. 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
to neglect, sexual abuse, and violence and, after a trauma assessment, Mazzola 
diagnosed M.C. with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 
¶ 7 
 
On 25 April 2016, defendant was indicted on three counts of indecent liberties 
with a child. At trial, the State called to testify, among others, M.C., Archie, McSwain, 
and Mazzola. Mazzola was qualified as an expert witness in sexual abuse and 
pediatric counseling. The defendant was subsequently convicted of all three counts 
and sentenced to three consecutive terms of 31 to 47 months imprisonment. 
¶ 8 
 
Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals addressed defendant’s arguments 
that the trial court committed plain error by “(1) not issuing a limiting instruction 
regarding ‘profile’ testimony; (2) allowing testimony and reports that amounted to 
improper vouching for the credibility of the victim; (3) incorrectly instructing the jury 
on the proper use of testimony related to the victim’s PTSD; and (4) admitting 
evidence of prior incidents of domestic violence by defendant.” State v. Betts, 267 N.C. 
App. 272, 274 (2019). In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals held that defendant 
received a fair trial free from prejudicial error. Id. at 286. 
¶ 9 
 
The dissent, however, argued that the consistent use of the term “disclose” by 
the State’s witnesses was impermissible vouching as to M.C.’s credibility, that the 
introduction of the domestic violence evidence was error, and the cumulative effect of 
these errors required reversal of defendant’s convictions. Id. at 297, 309−310 (Tyson, 
J., dissenting). Defendant appealed as of right to this Court based on the dissenting 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
opinion from the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals opinion did not directly 
address defendant’s issue on appeal of whether separate elements of Mazzola’s 
testimony constituted impermissible vouching of M.C.’s credibility, and this Court 
allowed defendant’s petition for discretionary review as to that issue. 
II. 
Standard of Review 
¶ 10 
 
If in a criminal case, an issue was not preserved by objection at trial and was 
not deemed preserved by rule or law, the unpreserved error is reviewed only for plain 
error. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(4) (2021). 
For error to constitute plain error, a defendant must 
demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial. To 
show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must 
establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire 
record, the error had a probable impact on the jury’s 
finding that the defendant was guilty. Moreover, because 
plain error is to be applied cautiously and only in the 
exceptional case the error will often be one that seriously 
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of 
judicial proceedings[.] 
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012) (cleaned up). 
III. 
Analysis 
A. Impermissible Vouching 
¶ 11 
 
Aside from its consideration of the term “disclose,” the Court of Appeals did not 
directly address defendant’s specific challenges to part of Mazzola’s testimony as 
impermissible vouching as to M.C.’s credibility. We address the issue here and 
accordingly modify the Court of Appeals’ majority opinion. 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 12 
 
Defendant did not object to this evidence when it was offered at trial and, thus, 
we review for plain error. Defendant argues that Mazzola’s answers in the affirmative 
to a series of questions from the State constituted impermissible vouching as to M.C.’s 
credibility and the trial court’s failure to strike her testimony was plain error. 
Specifically, the State asked and Mazzola answered in the affirmative the following 
questions: (1) “when you make a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, are there 
several types of traumatic events that could lead to that diagnosis?,” (2) “would 
violence in the home be one of those?,” (3) “what about domestic violence or witnessing 
domestic violence?,” (4) “what about sexual abuse?,” (5) “[w]ould it be fair to say that 
[M.C.] had experienced a number of traumas?,” and (6) “And that was the basis of 
your therapy?” 
¶ 13 
 
Expert opinion is not admissible to vouch for a victim’s credibility; nonetheless, 
“an expert witness may testify, upon a proper foundation, as to the profiles of sexually 
abused children and whether a particular complainant has symptoms or 
characteristics consistent therewith.” State v. Stancil, 355 N.C. 266, 266−267 (2002) 
(per curiam). An expert’s opinion that sexual abuse did in fact occur is admissible 
when there is physical evidence supporting a diagnosis of sexual abuse. Id. at 266. 
¶ 14 
 
Given the context of the testimony and the questions asked, Mazzola’s 
testimony did not vouch for M.C.’s credibility and thus was admissible testimony. As 
argued by the State, the challenged testimony addressed what types of trauma could 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
lead to a PTSD diagnosis—and never indicated which traumas M.C. experienced, if 
any. 
¶ 15 
 
This Court has held that “testimony amount[ing] to an expert’s opinion as to 
the credibility of the victim . . . is inadmissible under the mandate of Rule 608(a) [of 
the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.]” State v. Aguallo, 318 N.C. 590, 599 (1986). 
An identification of trauma which may form the basis of a PTSD diagnosis clearly, as 
recited by Mazzola, does not constitute a vouching for the victim’s credibility, but 
rather a statement of the considerations that led to the expert’s diagnosis. 
Accordingly, Mazzola’s testimony does not address credibility. Mazzola’s affirmative 
answer to the question concerning whether M.C. had experienced a number of 
traumas was in response to the State’s line of questioning regarding Mazzola’s 
diagnosis of PTSD. 
¶ 16 
 
Mazzola did not “usurp the jury’s function in determining credibility” as 
defendant claims. Mazzola never testified that M.C. was in fact sexually abused. Cf. 
State v. Towe, 366 N.C. 56, 59−60 (2012) (concluding that expert testimony was 
improper where the expert testified that the complainant was in fact part of a 
category of sexual abuse victims that displayed no physical abnormalities). Mazzola’s 
testimony stayed within the bounds of permissible expert witness testimony in child 
sex abuse cases. 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 17 
 
Even if Mazzola’s testimony was admitted in error, the testimony was not 
prejudicial to defendant. The trial court gave instructions to the jury on two occasions 
stating that Mazzola’s testimony could only be used for two purposes: to corroborate 
M.C.’s testimony or to explain M.C.’s delay in reporting defendant’s crimes. While 
defendant argues that M.C.’s testimony of the incidents contains several 
inconsistencies, defendant had the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine M.C. to highlight any alleged inconsistencies. In fact, defendant’s trial 
counsel did call attention to M.C.’s inconsistencies to the jury during closing 
arguments. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the burden of showing prejudice 
for an unpreserved error—that “the error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding 
that the defendant was guilty”—is upon the defendant. See Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 
518. Defendant has not met his burden of showing plain error. 
B. Use of the Word “Disclose” as Impermissible Vouching 
¶ 18 
 
Defendant next argues that the use of the word “disclose” throughout the 
State’s expert and lay witnesses’ testimony constituted impermissible vouching as to 
M.C.’s credibility. Defendant did not object to this evidence when it was offered at 
trial and, thus, we review for plain error. 
¶ 19 
 
An expert’s opinion that a complainant has endured sexual abuse, absent 
physical evidence, is impermissible vouching as to the complainant’s credibility. 
Stancil, 355 N.C. at 266−267. This Court “has found reversible error when experts 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
have testified that the victim was believable, had no record of lying, and had never 
been untruthful.” State v. Aguallo, 322 N.C. 818, 822 (1988). 
¶ 20 
 
Defendant relies on the unpublished Court of Appeals opinion State v. 
Jamison, COA18-292, 2018 WL 6318321 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2018), 3 which is based 
on State v. Frady, 228 N.C. App. 682, review denied, 367 N.C. 273 (2013), to argue 
that the State’s witnesses’ use of the word “disclose” constituted impermissible 
vouching. Defendant not only relies on an unpublished Court of Appeals decision to 
support his argument, but the holding in Frady does not support defendant’s 
position.4 An expert witness’s use of the word “disclose,” standing alone, does not 
constitute impermissible vouching as to the credibility of a victim of child sex abuse, 
regardless of how frequently used, and indicates nothing more than that a particular 
statement was made. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err by allowing 
the State’s witnesses to use the term “disclose” and there is no plain error. 
¶ 21 
 
Even if it were error for the trial court to admit testimony of the State’s 
witnesses who used the term “disclose,” defendant has not shown plain error. M.C. 
testified about three incidents of defendant inappropriately touching her, where she 
                                            
3 We note that it is highly disfavored to cite to unpublished opinions. See N.C. R. App. 
P. 30(e)(3) (2021). 
4 In State v. Frady, the Court of Appeals assessed the testimony of the expert and 
evaluated whether the meaning of the testimony would be construed by the jury as an opinion 
by the expert of the victim’s credibility. Frady, 228 N.C. App. at 685−86. Frady did not hold 
that the use of the word “disclose,” by itself, conveys an opinion as to the credibility of a 
victim. 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
gave several details and described the surrounding circumstances. While M.C.’s 
account of the events may have had inconsistencies, the jury had the opportunity to 
watch M.C. testify and make an independent determination as to her credibility. 
Furthermore, substantial evidence was presented to the jury to find that defendant 
had inappropriately touched M.C. The State submitted for the jury’s consideration 
McSwain’s report of the forensic interview, a video of the forensic interview, as well 
as testimony from Archie and Mazzola. Defendant has not shown that the use of the 
word “disclose” had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that he was guilty. See 
Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518. Therefore, there is no prejudice. 
C. Domestic Violence Evidence 
¶ 22 
 
Defendant next argues that the trial court plainly erred by allowing evidence 
of his past domestic violence incidents with M.C.’s mother in violation of North 
Carolina Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. We disagree. 
¶ 23 
 
Rule 401 states that “ ‘[r]elevant evidence’ means evidence having any 
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination 
of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” 
N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2019). Rule 403 states that “[a]lthough relevant, evidence 
may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of 
unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” 
N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403. 
¶ 24 
 
Here, defendant argues that the evidence of domestic violence, which consisted 
of the three incidents M.C. described to McSwain during her forensic interview, “had 
little−if anything−to do with the charged offenses.” Yet, the domestic violence 
evidence provides a justification for why M.C. was fearful of and delayed in reporting 
defendant’s sexual abuse. In State v. Espinoza-Valenzuela, 203 N.C. App. 485 (2010), 
the Court of Appeals held that evidence of domestic violence between defendant and 
complainants’ mother, although tending to show defendant’s character, was relevant 
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 to show why complainants delayed reporting 
the sexual abuse defendant perpetrated against them. Espinoza-Valenzuela, 203 N.C. 
App. at 491. The same rationale can be applied in the instant case. The domestic 
violence evidence goes directly to crucial issues in the case including M.C.’s 
credibility, the veracity of her allegations, and why she did not reveal defendant’s 
actions until DSS became involved with B.C., her younger sister. 
¶ 25 
 
The evidence of domestic violence was also probative of M.C.’s PTSD diagnosis. 
Mazzola testified to her opinion that M.C. has had “complex trauma” that ultimately 
led Mazzola to diagnosing M.C. with PTSD. Mazzola testified that domestic violence 
can contribute to a person developing PTSD. The domestic violence evidence, thus, 
aided the jury’s understanding of M.C.’s PTSD diagnosis. Since the domestic violence 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
evidence was relevant to explain why M.C. delayed reporting defendant’s sexual 
assaults and the domestic violence contributed to M.C.’s PTSD diagnosis, it follows 
that the evidence was relevant under Rule 401 and 403 as it pertained to M.C.’s PTSD 
and its effects on M.C. See State v. Hall, 330 N.C. 808, 822 (1992) (“[T]estimony on 
post-traumatic stress syndrome may assist in corroborating the victim’s story, or it 
may help to explain delays in reporting the crime or to refute the defense of consent.”). 
¶ 26 
 
The domestic violence evidence was relevant pursuant to Rule 401 to offer an 
explanation as to why M.C. delayed reporting defendant’s crimes and aided the jury’s 
understanding of M.C.’s PTSD diagnosis. The domestic violence evidence was not 
more prejudicial than probative so as to be excluded under Rule 403 because it went 
directly to an issue in the case—M.C.’s credibility. Therefore, we conclude that the 
trial court did not err by admitting evidence of defendant’s past incidents of domestic 
violence, and thus, there cannot be plain error. 
D. Cumulative Error 
¶ 27 
 
Finally, defendant argues that the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors 
prejudiced him. Since we hold that none of the issues present error, we decline to 
consider defendant’s cumulative error argument. See State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77, 
106 (2004) (stating that because the Court concluded there was no error on two of 
defendant’s assignments of error, defendant’s cumulative error argument did not 
need to be considered). 
STATE V. BETTS 
2021-NCSC-68 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
IV. 
Conclusion 
¶ 28 
 
Defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error. Neither Mazzola’s 
testimony, which was not fully addressed by the Court of Appeals, nor the use of the 
word 
“disclose” 
throughout 
the 
State’s 
witnesses’ 
testimony 
constituted 
impermissible vouching as to M.C.’s credibility. Furthermore, the domestic violence 
evidence was relevant to explain why M.C. delayed reporting defendant’s crimes and 
aided the jury’s understanding of M.C.’s PTSD diagnosis. Since we conclude that the 
trial court did not commit error, there was no cumulative error. Accordingly, we 
modify and affirm the Court of Appeals decision. 
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 
Justice BERGER did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 
case.