Court Opinion

ID: 9564103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:54:21.93126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:13.792776
License: Public Domain

*249Justice Mitchell
concurring.
I concur in the holding of the Court. I write separately to emphasize my view that the evidence of the defendant’s alleged sexual contacts with his sister nine years before trial was made irrelevant and therefore inadmissible solely because those sexual contacts were too remote in time to be probative or relevant. Had the defendant’s alleged sexual contacts with his sister occurred at a time reasonably close to the acts for which he was being tried, I believe evidence of them would have been admissible under Rule 404(b) to show the defendant’s intent and to identify the defendant — and not his wife — as the perpetrator of the sex offenses against his sister’s little children. See generally 1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence § 92 (2d rev. ed. 1982); State v. Greene, 294 N.C. 418, 241 S.E. 2d 662 (1978).
Justices Meyer and Martin join in this concurring opinion.