State v. Green

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-346
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA24-346

Filed 19 November 2025

Forsyth County, No. 22CR054835-330

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

CHRISTOPHER EMANUEL GREEN, Defendant.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 August 2023 by Judge Craig

Croom in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 January

2025.

Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Jason Caccamo, for the State-appellee.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Anne M. Gomez, for defendant-appellant.

GORE, Judge.

This case arises from defendant’s appeal of his convictions for assault on a

female and misdemeanor sexual battery following a jury trial in Superior Court,

Forsyth County. On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the assault on a female conviction, the admission of certain testimony at STATE V. GREEN

Opinion of the Court

trial, and the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the charges. These issues

are properly before this Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(b). After careful review,

we discern no error.

I.

On 18 June 2022, Nancy,1 a 16-year-old, was working her shift at a Taco Bell

in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where she had been employed for nearly a year.

Defendant, Christopher Green, was a coworker who had worked with her for

approximately two months. While taking a break during her shift, Nancy went to the

women’s restroom. Shortly after, defendant entered the restroom without

permission. Nancy asked him what he was doing, but he did not respond.

According to Nancy’s testimony, defendant pushed her against the wall and

restrained her. He started to kiss her neck and place his hands up her shirt. When

she tried to leave, defendant grabbed her arm and tried to pull her into a stall.

Defendant continued to restrain Nancy and attempted to reach into her pants. Nancy

tried to leave a second time and defendant grabbed her again, placed his hands under

her bra, and tried to get them down her pants. Defendant never responded to

repeated pleas to stop. He finally stopped and left the restroom.

Nancy called her mother and immediately reported the incident to the police.

Corporal Meadows of the Winston-Salem Police Department responded to the scene

1 A pseudonym.

-2- STATE V. GREEN

and took statements from Nancy and defendant. According to the police report,

defendant admitted to following Nancy into the restroom and “that he picked her up

by her ribs.” Surveillance footage obtained from the restaurant later corroborated

that defendant entered the restroom shortly after Nancy. Officers spoke with Nancy’s

mother, and she informed them that “her daughter called her crying, saying she was

sexually assaulted by Mr. Green.” Based on this evidence, the police consulted with

a district attorney, placed defendant under arrest, and transported him to the

magistrate’s office.

Defendant was charged by magistrate’s order with assault on a female and

misdemeanor sexual battery. He was initially tried in District Court, Forsyth

County, on 8 December 2022. He was found guilty as charged, and the trial court

entered a Judgment Suspending Sentence. Defendant appealed this judgment and

requested a jury trial in Superior Court, Forsyth County.

The superior court trial occurred on 7-9 August 2023. After hearing testimony

from witnesses and reviewing the evidence, the jury found defendant guilty as

charged. The superior court imposed the same sentence as the district court,

including probation and associated conditions. Defendant subsequently filed a notice

of appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the assault charge and other

procedural rulings made during the trial.

II.

A.

-3- STATE V. GREEN

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the

assault on a female charge due to insufficient evidence. Specifically, defendant

argues the evidence failed to prove the allegation in the magistrate’s order that he

“picked up [the] victim by her body against the wall.” The State persuasively refutes

this argument by demonstrating that the evidence satisfied the essential elements of

the offense, and the additional language in the charging document is immaterial.

The description in the magistrate’s order—“picked up [the] victim by her body

against the wall”—is not an essential element of the offense of assault on a female.

Under N.C.G.S. § 14-33(c)(2), the State must prove three elements: (1) an assault, (2)

upon a female, (3) by a male at least 18 years old. As the North Carolina Supreme

Court explained in State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 276 (1972), “[a]llegations [in

indictments] beyond the essential elements of the crime sought to be charged are

irrelevant and may be treated as surplusage.” This rule prevents immaterial details

from undermining valid convictions.

Here, the additional language in the charging document does not alter the

nature of the offense. As this Court clarified in State v. Henry, 237 N.C. App. 311,

324 (2014), surplusage in criminal pleadings does not constitute a material variance

unless it “fundamentally alter[s] the nature of the offense charged[.]” The trial court’s

instructions to the jury focused on the statutory elements, and defendant was clearly

on notice of the assault on a female charge.

In determining whether to dismiss for insufficient evidence, this Court

-4- STATE V. GREEN

considers whether there is “substantial evidence of each element of the offense

charged[.]” State v. Cox, 375 N.C. 165, 168–69 (2020) (citation omitted). “[T]he

weight and credibility of such evidence is a question reserved for the jury.” Id. at 169

(citation omitted). Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v.

McClaude, 237 N.C. App. 350, 353 (2014). The evidence must be viewed in the light

most favorable to the State, with all contradictions resolved in its favor. Id.

The victim testified that defendant pushed her against the wall, kissed her

neck, and restrained her by grabbing her arm—all without her consent. These actions

satisfy the legal definition of assault, which is

an overt act or an attempt, or the unequivocal appearance of an attempt, with force and violence, to do some immediate physical injury to the person of another, which show of force or menace of violence must be sufficient to put a person of reasonable firmness in fear of immediate bodily harm.

State v. Roberts, 270 N.C. 655, 658 (1967) (citation omitted). The State also

introduced video footage corroborating that defendant followed the victim into the

restroom, further strengthening the case. While defendant highlighted

inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, it is well established that credibility

determinations are for the jury. See Cox, 375 N.C. at 169.

Defendant argues the jury instructions improperly tied the assault charge to

the specific act of “picking up [the] victim by her body against the wall.” The trial

-5- STATE V. GREEN

court’s instructions properly focused, however, on the essential elements of the

offense—an intentional application of force by a male at least 18 years old upon a

female—without requiring proof of the specific phrasing in the charging document.

This approach aligns with our emphasis on substance over form in criminal

pleadings. The North Carolina Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against

rigid reliance on archaic pleading rules, which prioritize technicality over equity. In

In re J.U., 384 N.C. 618, 622–23 (2023), the Court reaffirmed that modern pleading

standards aim to ensure justice by focusing on the essential elements of the crime

rather than immaterial descriptive language. Here, the surplus language in the

magistrate’s order—“picked up [the] victim by her body against the wall”—was

unnecessary to establish the offense and did not prejudice defendant.

Thus, the relevant evidence presented at trial was “adequate to support a

conclusion” that defendant committed an assault on a female. McClaude, 237 N.C.

App. at 353. The jury instructions reflected the essential elements of the offense, and

any surplus language in the magistrate’s order did not create a fatal variance.

Moreover, our Courts have consistently preferred submitting close cases to the jury.

Borderline issues should be resolved by jurors “in reliance on the common sense and

fairness of the twelve and to avoid unnecessary appeals.” State v. Glisson, 251 N.C.

App. 844, 848 (2017). Here, the jury evaluated the victim’s testimony, the

corroborating evidence, and the defense’s challenges, ultimately concluding that

defendant’s actions constituted assault.

-6- STATE V. GREEN

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the assault on a

female charge. The victim’s testimony, supported by corroborating video evidence,

established the essential elements of the offense. Any surplusage in the charging

document was immaterial and did not prejudice defendant.

B.

Defendant argues the trial court plainly erred in allowing Corporal Meadows

to testify that he and Officer Stamey presented “both sides of the story” to the

prosecutor, who then authorized charges against him. Defendant contends this

testimony improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility and prejudiced the jury. We

determine, however, that the testimony did not constitute improper vouching, and

any potential error was mitigated by jury instructions and insufficient to meet the

plain error standard.

Under North Carolina law, the plain error standard is applied cautiously and

only in exceptional cases where an unpreserved error is so fundamental that it likely

impacted the jury’s verdict. State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012). To establish

plain error, the defendant must demonstrate that the error “had a probable impact

on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.” Id. (quoting State v. Odom, 307

N.C. 655, 660 (1983)). Mere speculation is insufficient; the defendant must show the

error undermined the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Odom, 307 N.C. at

660.

Defendant asserts Corporal Meadows’ statement implied the prosecutor

-7- STATE V. GREEN

believed the victim’s account, thereby improperly influencing the jury. However,

North Carolina courts have consistently held that testimony must amount to a direct

or express opinion about a witness’s credibility to constitute improper vouching. See

State v. Bailey, 89 N.C. App. 212, 219 (1988) (“[T]estimony of an expert to the effect

that a prosecuting witness is believable, credible, or telling the truth is inadmissible

evidence.”).

Here, Corporal Meadows’ statement did not rise to this level. His testimony

that the prosecutor authorized charges after hearing “both sides of the story” was

part of the investigative narrative rather than an explicit endorsement of the victim’s

truthfulness. The challenged statement was incidental and not presented as fact

under oath to establish credibility. Corporal Meadows’ testimony merely described

the process leading to the charges and did not specifically comment on the veracity of

the victim.

Even if the testimony were deemed improper, the trial court provided clear

jury instructions to mitigate any potential prejudice. The jury was repeatedly

instructed that it was the “sole judge of the weight to be given to any evidence” and

the “sole judge of the believability of a witness.” The court also explicitly advised

jurors that the fact that defendant was charged was “no evidence of guilt.” North

Carolina courts presume that jurors follow such instructions. See State v. Glover, 77

N.C. App. 418, 421 (1985) (assuming jurors are sufficiently intelligent to follow the

court’s instructions and are presumed to do so).

-8- STATE V. GREEN

To meet the plain error standard, the defendant must show the alleged error

likely impacted the jury’s decision. Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518. But the evidence

against defendant, including the victim’s testimony and corroborating video footage,

was strong. The brief and incidental nature of the contested statement, combined

with the jury instructions, rendered it unlikely to have swayed the verdict.

Additionally, allowing testimony that charges were authorized does not inherently

prejudice the jury because such authorization is a procedural requirement in all

criminal cases. The jury was already aware that charges had been brought against

defendant, and the prosecutor’s role in the process was implicit.

The trial court did not commit plain error in allowing Corporal Meadows’

testimony. The statement was not direct vouching, and any potential prejudice was

mitigated by jury instructions and outweighed by the evidence supporting the

conviction. Defendant has failed to meet the high threshold for plain error.

C.

Defendant contends the assault on a female charge is not supported by

evidence distinct from the force inherent in the sexual battery charge. He argues the

events in the restroom constituted a single, continuous act. The State refutes this

argument, demonstrating that the evidence supports distinct interruptions between

two separate assaults.

North Carolina law permits multiple assault charges if there is substantial

evidence of a distinct interruption between separate acts. In State v. Dew, 379 N.C.

-9- STATE V. GREEN

64, 72 (2021), the Supreme Court emphasized that a “distinct interruption” may

involve an intervening event, a lapse of time to allow for a pause in the attack, or a

clear change in the defendant’s conduct. Additionally, “[e]vidence that a defendant

used different methods of attack can show a distinct interruption depending on the

totality of the circumstances.” Id.

Here, the State argues defendant’s conduct involved two separate acts: the

initial physical assault and the later sexual battery. Each act was distinct in its

method, intent, and timing.

The evidence at trial supports the conclusion that there was a distinct

interruption between two separate assaults. The victim testified that defendant

initially pushed her against the wall, pulled her by the neck, and kissed her on the

neck multiple times. After this, defendant paused and ceased his initial contact.

Following this pause, defendant subsequently grabbed her arm, attempted to restrain

her, and tried to touch her private areas with the intent to commit sexual battery.

The testimony demonstrated a clear stopping point between the initial physical

assault and the subsequent sexual battery. The pause in defendant’s actions and the

change in the nature of the contact—shifting from physical force to sexually

motivated actions—constituted a sufficient interruption under Dew. The force used

in the sexual battery was distinct from the earlier physical actions, such as pushing

the victim against the wall and kissing her neck. These actions supported the assault

on a female charge as separate and distinct from the sexual battery.

- 10 - STATE V. GREEN

When considering sufficiency of evidence, courts view the evidence in the light

most favorable to the State, resolving any contradictions in its favor. McClaude, 237

N.C. App. at 353. Here, the jury evaluated the evidence, including the victim’s

account and corroborating details, and found sufficient grounds to convict defendant

of both charges. Appellate courts must defer to the jury’s role in resolving factual

disputes.

The evidence presented at trial established two distinct assaults, separated by

a clear interruption in conduct. The first assault involved physical actions such as

pushing and neck kissing, while the second involved a different intent and effort to

engage in sexual touching. The trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to

dismiss, as the evidence supported separate charges under established law.

Accordingly, we discern no error in defendant’s conviction for assault on a female.

III.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err

in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the assault on a female charge. The

evidence presented at trial sufficiently supported each element of the offense, and

any surplus language in the magistrate’s order was immaterial. Additionally, the

trial court did not plainly err in admitting Corporal Meadows’ testimony, as it was

part of the investigative narrative and did not improperly vouch for the victim’s

credibility. Finally, the evidence established a distinct interruption between separate

assaults, justifying separate convictions for assault on a female and misdemeanor

- 11 - STATE V. GREEN

sexual battery. Accordingly, we discern no error in the trial court’s rulings and

uphold defendant’s convictions.

NO ERROR.

Judge MURRY concurs.

Judge ARROWOOD concurs in the result only.

Report per Rule 30(e).

- 12 -