North Carolina v. S.C.: At seventeen years old, our client was charged in Juvenile Court with First Degree Rape for an allegation believed to have occurred two years prior. Not only were we able to uncover that a rape did not in fact occur, but the charges were reduced to Attempted Statutory Rape, and the case was retained in Juvenile Court. This shielded our client from being prosecuted as an adult and being subject to adult consequences. Our client was ordered to complete one year of juvenile supervised sex offense treatment. Thus, our client has no adult record, was not required to register as a sex offender, and would be eligible eighteen months from the completion of his probation to have his record sealed.
ACCUSATION:
– First Degree Rape (N.C.G.S. § 14-27.2)-27
– First Degree Sex Offense (N.C.G.S. § 14-27.4(a)(1))-27
– Kidnapping (N.C.G.S. § 14-39)
RESULT: No Charges Filed
North Carolina v. Z.M.: A woman reached out to our client after seeing him on the popular dating website, Tinder. Our client was invited to the woman’s home to spend the night and the pair engaged in consensual sex. Feeling jilted by unreturned phone calls after a one-night stand, law enforcement was contacted, and our client was accused and investigated for allegedly having engaged in nonsexual sex with the accuser. At our suggestion, our client submitted to a polygraph exam, which indicated our client’s assertion that the sex was consensual was non-deceptive. After consideration of our client’s voluntary interview with the detective, the polygraph results and texts messages shared between the two, the Assistant District Attorney declined to bring charges against our client.
ACCUSATION:
– Indecent Liberties with a Minor (N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1)
– Statutory Sex Offense (N.C.G.S. § 14-27.25)
– Statutory Rape (N.C.G.S. § 14-27.30)
RESULT: No Charges Filed
North Carolina v. S.P.: Our client’s wife accused him of sexually abusing his stepdaughter, but proposed not involving the police, if the client agreed to move out of the marital home and financially provide for her and her minor child until the child was 25. Our client vehemently denied the allegations. We suggested that, with counsel present, our client submit to a voluntary interview with the investigating detective. Upon review of the information provided during our client’s voluntary interview with the detective, as well as the alleged victim’s statements, the State of North Carolina declined to prosecute due to the vagueness of the allegations.
ACCUSATION:
– Second Degree Forcible Sex Offense, NCGS 14-27.27; Violation of University “Title IX” Policy Facing: 236 months
FACING:
– 236 months
RESULT:
Our client was never charged with a crime by police and never issued discipline by his University
State v. M.K.: Our client was a student at a major NC university. After having intimate relations with a peer, the peer reported our client to the police and the University claiming sexual assault. Our client adamantly maintained his innocence. After compiling information tending to prove our client’s innocence, we submitted those materials to both law enforcement and the University. Ultimately, we received confirmation that both the District Attorney’s Office and the University were declining to pursue these (false) allegations, both as a criminal matter and as a student conduct matter. Our client was able to continue his education, and we were able to work out this investigation in such a manner that our client never even missed an exam, despite an “emergency” interim suspension that was briefly put in place by the University.
North Carolina vs. R.C. – Our client, who had no criminal record, was accused of breaking into a neighbor’s home and sexually assaulting her. The allegations, if proven in their entirety, would have required a judge to place our client on the sex offender registry for up to 30 years, as well as the potential for jail time. After pointing out serious flaws in the State’s case, our client was allowed to plead guilty to Misdemeanor Assault on a Female, which meant he would not be placed on the sex offender registry. Also, the Breaking and Entering charge was dismissed, and the client was sentenced to Unsupervised Probation.
CHARGES:
– Statutory Rape (30x)
– 2nd Degree Sexual Offense Against a Mentally Impaired Person (10x)
– Sexual Exploitation of a Minor
State of NC v. RW — Client had two prior convictions for Indecent Liberties with a Minor. Client, who was elderly and in failing health, was in a consensual relationship with a 20 year old woman that ended over a dispute about his Last Will and Testament. After the relationship ended, she made a report to law enforcement that the relationship began when she was 14 years old. She further alleged that our client threatened her and her family members. Finally, she alleged that our client engaged in sexual acts and forced her to engage in sexual acts with a family friend who was mentally impaired. Prior to retaining an attorney, our client told law enforcement officers that the relationship began when the woman was “15 or 16” and that he took of a photo of her while she was under the age of 18. Upon investigation, we were able to present numerous witnesses who agreed that they had not seen our client with this woman until she was 16 years old. We were also able to present letters written by this woman to our client, where she discusses being angry at our client for spending money on his children instead of on her. Client entered a plea to one count of Indecent Liberties with a Minor Child. All remaining charges were dismissed.
CHARGES:
– Indecent Liberties with a Minor (10 counts)
State v. A.B. – Our client was alleged to have sexually assaulted his 13 and 15 year old stepdaughters. The allegations were made by one of the stepdaughters to her school counselor. Child Protective Services conducted an investigation and referred the matter to local law enforcement. We conducted our own investigation, which included interviewing all of the minor children in the home. Both minor children agreed that they lied to law enforcement, because they were angry at their stepfather for disciplining them. They wanted their mom and stepfather to split up. We presented these findings to the district attorney. After reviewing our documentation, the State made the decision to dismiss all charges.
CHARGES:
– Felony Intentional Child Abuse – Serious Physical Injury
– Assault on a Female (2x)
– Assault by Strangulation
– Injury to Personal Property
State vs. L.S. — Client was charged with charged with breaking the arm of a four year old child and getting into an altercation with the child’s mother. The child’s mother, who was in a relationship with our client, was also charged with child abuse. Client, prior to obtaining counsel, told law enforcement that he had grabbed the child’s arm earlier that week, but did not think that he had grabbed the child hard enough to hurt him. Client also admitted to law enforcement that he was high on drugs during the time when the child was hurt. Client was able to enter an Alford plea to a lesser offense of Negligent Child Abuse, where he did not admit guilt but accepted punishment. Client received probation.
CHARGES:
– 1st Degree Sex Offense with a Minor
– Indecent Liberties with a Minor
State v. J.M. – Client was charged with performing sexual acts on a minor child. Client already had already been prosecuted in another state for a prior sex offense against a minor. We challenged the credibility of the accuser and identified issues that could be raised at trial. The Assistant District Attorney agreed to dismiss the 1st Degree Sex Offense charge in exchange for a plea to Indecent Liberties with a Minor. The client received a probationary sentence.
ACCUSATION:
– Indecent Liberties with a Minor (based on a Child Protective Services investigation)
State v. J.H. – Client was accused of inappropriately touching a minor child he used to babysit. The minor alleged that he would take her into the woods during games of “hide and seek” and ask her to touch his private areas. The minor also alleged that she observed our client touching his sisters in the same manner. We interviewed the client’s family members, who denied that our client ever did anything inappropriate. We used those statements to challenge to challenge the credibility of the accuser. No charges were filed and Child Protective Services closed their investigation on the family.
State v. S.S. – Client was accused of using his cell phone to record under a female’s skirt without her knowledge. Our client was under the age of 18 at the time of the offense, but still facing criminal charges as an adult. We had our client evaluated by a licensed psychologist and, based on those results, we were able to persuade law enforcement not to pursue criminal charges against our client.
– Indecent Liberties with a Minor (N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1)
– Statutory Sex Offense (N.C.G.S. § 14-27.25)
– Statutory Rape (N.C.G.S. § 14-27.30)-27
North Carolina v. S.P.: Our client’s wife accused him of sexually abusing his stepdaughter, but proposed not involving the police, if the client agreed to move out of the marital home and financially provide for her and her minor child until the child was 25. Our client vehemently denied the allegations. We suggested that, with counsel present, our client submit to a voluntary interview with the investigating detective. Upon review of the information provided during our client’s voluntary interview with the detective, as well as the alleged victim’s statements, the State of North Carolina declined to prosecute due to the vagueness of the allegations.
Result: No Charges Filed
*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ fall into two categories — legal ability and general ethical standards.
