ARNOLD, Chief Judge.
Defendant first argues that testimony concerning an uncharged prior sexual act between defendant and the victim was improperly allowed into evidence. Defendant concedes that evidence of this type is commonly allowed under N.C.R.Evid. 404(b), but he contends that because there was no time frame established for the prior act, it was inadmissible. We disagree that no time frame was established for the prior act.
The charged offenses occurred...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
