An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 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. COA13-1160

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 20 May 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Graham County

Nos. 12 CRS 360-61; 50484

ERNESTO REYNOSA

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 20 March 2013 by 

Judge James U. Downs in Superior Court, Graham County. Heard in 

the Court of Appeals 29 April 2014. 

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney 

General Olga Vysotskaya, for the State. 

Mark Montgomery for Defendant-Appellant. 

McGEE, Judge.

Ernesto Reynosa (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment imposed 

upon jury convictions of two counts of first-degree sex offense

with a child and one count of taking indecent liberties with a 

child. Defendant was sentenced to a minimum term of 192 months 

and a maximum term of 243 in prison. The sole issue presented 

by Defendant on appeal is whether the trial court erred by 

submitting special instructions requested by the State regarding 
-2-

contradictory or conflicting statements of Defendant. We hold 

the trial court did not err. 

The State’s evidence tends to show that Defendant’s wife, 

Melissa Reynosa (“Ms. Reynosa”), had two sons and one daughter 

before she married Defendant. On 2 December 2012, Ms. Reynosa

and her son (“B.R.”) returned home. Ms. Reynosa entered her 

bedroom and saw her daughter (“S.D.”) lying on the bed with her 

panties down to her ankles. Defendant had his face and mouth on

S.D.’s vaginal area.

S.D., who was twelve years old at the time of trial, 

testified that, while her mother was away from the home on 2 

December 2012, Defendant had S.D. lie on her mother’s bed. 

Defendant pulled down S.D.’s pants and licked her private parts

between her legs. Defendant also pulled up S.D.’s shirt and put 

his mouth on her breasts. 

B.R. testified that, after returning home with his mother 

on 2 December 2012, he heard his mother screaming at Defendant. 

He went into his mother’s bedroom and saw his sister, S.D.,

lying on the bed “half naked.” Law enforcement officers came to 

the home later that evening and asked B.R. questions. B.R. told 

the officers that on an earlier occasion, he had seen Defendant 

and S.D. in S.D.’s closet. His sister’s “pants were down a 
-3-

little ways” and Defendant was “kissing her below the belly 

button.” 

Officer Ethan Henderson (“Officer Henderson”) of the Graham 

County Sheriff’s Department arrived at Defendant’s home on the 

evening of 2 December 2012 to investigate, and testified to the

following. Officer Henderson stated that Ms. Reynosa reported 

she walked into her bedroom and saw Defendant “on top of [S.D.]

with his head down around her vagina[.]” Ms. Reynosa told him 

that her daughter’s “pants were pulled down and her shirt was

pulled up.” B.R. told Officer Henderson that on another 

occasion he had seen Defendant crouched down in front of S.D. in 

her closet and that S.D.’s pants were down.

Investigator Larry Jenkins (“Investigator Jenkins”) of the 

Graham County Sheriff’s Department testified he also visited the 

Reynosa residence on the evening of 2 December 2012 and 

collected evidence from the house. Investigator Jenkins

interviewed Defendant at the Sheriff’s Department later that 

evening and said Defendant denied that he molested or engaged 

in sexual activity with S.D. 

The next morning, Chief Investigator Milton Teasdale 

interviewed Defendant at the Sheriff’s Department. He said that 

Defendant initially denied engaging in any sexual activity with 
-4-

S.D., but later admitted that he “licked” her vaginal area. 

Defendant also admitted he engaged in sexual activity with S.D. 

more than once. 

At trial, Defendant testified that he did nothing sexual

with S.D. on 2 December 2012. He also stated he was coerced 

into confessing by the law enforcement officers.

During the charge conference, the State requested that the 

trial court instruct the jury regarding contradictory or 

conflicting statements of Defendant. The trial court initially 

denied the request but changed its mind the next morning. 

Defendant objected to submission of the instruction.

The trial court subsequently instructed the jury as 

follows:

Members of the jury, there has – the State 

contends and . . . [D]efendant denies that 

he has made contradictory statements, 

conflicting statements about what allegedly 

occurred. If you find that he made such 

statements they may be considered by you as 

a circumstance tending to reflect the mental 

process of a person possessed by a guilty 

conscious [sic], seeking to divert suspicion 

or to exculpate him. And you should 

consider that evidence along with all the 

other believable evidence that you deem to 

be believable to the extent of beyond a 

reasonable doubt in accordance with what the 

State must prove, . . . [D]efendant having 

no burden to prove anything, that is, the 

other believable evidence to that extent in 

this case.
-5-

On the other hand, if you find 

. . . [D]efendant made such statements, they 

don’t create a presumption of guilt. Such 

evidence standing alone is not sufficient, 

is not sufficient to establish guilt. 

Defendant argues there are two problems with the 

instruction: (1) it placed undue emphasis upon Defendant’s 

confession; and (2) it was not supported by the evidence because 

Defendant did not deny making conflicting statements. We 

disagree.

The instruction given by the trial court is consistent with 

an instruction approved by our Supreme Court in State v. Walker, 

332 N.C. 520, 537, 422 S.E.2d 716, 726 (1992). A trial court 

properly gives the instruction concerning contradictory 

statements when the defendant’s own statements contradict each 

other or flatly contradict the evidence. Id. at 538, 422 S.E.2d

at 726. In this case, Defendant gave contradictory statements 

to law enforcement officers. Defendant’s trial testimony also 

contradicted what he told law enforcement officers in his 

confession. 

No error.

Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).