STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAUN RYAN MORTON (2024)

Defendant Shaun Ryan Morton was found guilty by a jury of one count of statutory sex offense and other sexual crimes in connection with encounters he had with a minor under the age of sixteen. After arresting judgment on two of the convictions, the trial court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment. Defendant appeals.

Defendant argues the trial court erred by allowing the State to present evidence regarding Defendant's prior conviction for sexual battery on a child.

Evidence of certain prior convictions may be admissible under Rule 404(b) of our Rules of Evidence. Our Supreme Court instructs that we review a trial court's determination as to whether a prior conviction falls within the scope of Rule 404(b) de novo. State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127, 130, 726 S.E.2d 156, 159 (2012). However, since Rule 404(b) is a “clear general rule of inclusion,” after concluding that a prior conviction falls within Rule 404(b), we then must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that the probative value of the prior conviction outweighs any unfair prejudice under Rule 403. Id.

Here, though, Defendant does not argue that the conviction does not fall within the parameters of Rule 404(b). Rather, he merely contends on appeal that the trial court erred in its Rule 403 determination.

In the present case, the trial court conducted a balancing test after hearing arguments regarding presentation of the 404(b) evidence to the jury. The trial court allowed the jury to hear about the prior conviction but provided a limiting instruction to mitigate any danger of unfair prejudice. Specifically, the trial court instructed the jury that it “may consider [the evidence] only for the limited purpose for which it was received” (i.e., to show Defendant's identity, motive, intent, and opportunity to commit the crime—not to show whether Defendant had a propensity to commit the crime). See State v. Barnett, 223 N.C. App. 450, 456, 734 S.E.2d 130, 135 (2012) (“Limiting instructions mitigate the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.”).

Based on our review of the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to hear evidence of Defendant's prior conviction.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

PER CURIAM.