In an unpublished opinion filed in September of 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a very important evidentiary issue in a child sex offense case. The State of North Carolina v. Michael James Crum (COA25-1008) is a case out of Lee County where Mr. Crum was tried by a jury after being indicted for Statutory Sex Offense of a Child and Indecent Liberties with a Child. Mr. Crum was convicted of both charges and gave notice of appeal. He appealed the trial court’s admission of a video interview of the victim that was conducted by a social worker.
Mr. Crum lived in a trailer with the female victim (child) and some family members of the victim. Mr. Crum was not related to the child but was dating her grandmother. One night in April of 2018, Mr. Crum rubbed the child’s arms “to help her fall asleep.” Later that night, the child woke up when she felt Mr. Crum’s hand going up her shirt. The child was afraid and pretended like she was sleeping. Mr. Crum tried to open the child’s legs as she tried to keep them closed. During the trial, the child testified that she felt Mr. Crum’s hands “in my pants” and “on my private.” After Mr. Crum left, the child told her mother.
During the trial, the child’s mother testified that she took the child to Carolina Central Hospital and the child was sent by ambulance to Chapel Hill where she was examined for “several hours.” The family then went to Lee County Social Services and then to UNC Children’s Hospital. At UNC Children’s Hospital, the child was examined by a physician and she was also evaluated by a multi-disciplinary team which handles children’s acute injury and sexual abuse. In addition to a doctor, a licensed clinical social worker also interviewed the child during her visit at UNC. The child’s interview with the social worker was videotaped. The interview was conducted in a room down the hall from the examination room. The interview room had two green child-sized chairs and a child-sized table with paper and markers. There were also two adult-sized chairs in the room with a table in between them. The video was admitted into evidence during the trial after a bench conference on its admissibility.
On appeal, Mr. Crum argued that the trial court erred by admitting the video taped interview as hearsay that did not meet the exception under Rule 803(4) and that the video was not properly authenticated. The appellate Court noted that Mr. Crump’s objection to the admission of the video could not be found in the record. However, the record did contain a lengthy discussion about the admissibility of the video under 803 that was conducted outside of the presence of the jury. The Court found that this discussion was sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review. However, the appellate Court determined that the issue of authentication was not preserved and therefore that error was reviewed for plain error.
The Court’s discussion and analysis of the applicability of Rule 803(4) is very detailed and insightful regarding the testimony of a minor victim. The information that the court lays out here should be helpful to many legal practitioners. The Court reviewed the admissibility of the out-of-court statements in the video under Rule 803(4) de novo. Rule 803(4) permits the admission of “Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” Statements made to a physician for the purpose of treatment are deemed to be trustworthy.
The Court refers to the two-part inquiry as to the applicability of 803(4) is outlined in State v. Hinnant, 351 N.C. 277 (2000). The declarant’s statements should be made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment; and the declarant’s statements should reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The Court found that the record demonstrates that the child’s statements during the interview indicate that she understood that they would lead to medical treatment or diagnosis. During the interview, the social worker stated many times that the child would go to the doctor and the child stated that she was there to “go to the doctor.” The social worker also engaged in some truth telling exercises with the child. After the truth telling exercise, the social worker stressed to the child the importance of telling the truth. The interview did not contain any leading questions and after the interview, the child went around the corner into the examination room. Thus, the Court found that the first prong of the Hinnant test was satisfied. As for the second prong, the Court found that the child’s statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The social worker relayed information gathered in the interview to the doctor for the purposes of aiding in the physical exam. The child’s statements to the social worker were not provided merely for the purposes of trial preparation. Therefore, the Court concluded that the interview by the social worker was reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. Since both prongs of the Hinnant test were satisfied, the appellate Court determined that video fell under the 803(4) hearsay exception.
As for Mr. Crum’s argument that the video was not authenticated and therefore should not have been admitted into evidence, the appellate Court reviewed this issue for plain error. Plain error is reserved for situations of grave error when a fundamental right of the defendant has been violated. Plain error is applicable when there has been a miscarriage of justice such that the defendant has been denied a fair trial. Here the Court found that the introduction of a video into evidence without a proper foundation is not tantamount to plain error. Therefore, the Court found this argument without merit.
This case highlights what a moving party needs to show in order to have an out of court statement pertaining to medical treatment admitted into evidence under Rule 803(4). The standards outlined in this case can be beneficial to prosecutors and defense attorneys alike. Furthermore, those who practice in area of child welfare may also find the information contained in this opinion valuable.
Recent Comments