## Facts

- Timothy Ober Thompson lived with a minor child (“N”), N’s mother, and N’s siblings for parts of N’s childhood.
- N testified Thompson sexually abused her beginning around age five, including forced oral sex occurring frequently.
- After a period when N lived apart from Thompson, she returned to the household around age ten; N testified Thompson resumed physical abuse immediately and sexual abuse shortly thereafter.
- The State’s evidence included charged incidents:
  - In December 1993 (when N was 12), Thompson allegedly showed N pornography, assaulted her with a dildo, and had intercourse with her.
  - In January 1994, Thompson allegedly had intercourse with N again.
  - In February 1996, after N ran away, she met Thompson, went with him to a hotel, had intercourse, and he paid her; a dated hotel receipt corroborated their stay.
- The State also introduced evidence of Thompson’s violence and threats toward N, including beatings and threats with weapons, offered to explain N’s fear and delayed disclosure to authorities.
- Over objection, the State presented testimony that Thompson abused N’s siblings and the family cat, including acts committed in N’s presence (e.g., forcing siblings to fight and killing the cat).
- Thompson was tried in Durham County Superior Court and convicted of multiple child-sex offenses; he appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings, alleged nondisclosure of confidential records, and alleged trial “rushing.”

## Issues

1. Whether prior sexual acts by Thompson against the same victim, occurring years before the charged offenses, were admissible under Rule 404(b) to show a common plan or scheme rather than propensity.
2. Whether evidence that Thompson abused N’s siblings and the family cat was admissible to explain N’s fear and delayed reporting after the defense attacked her credibility on that basis.
3. Whether the trial court violated Brady principles regarding Department of Social Services (DSS) and medical records, including whether in camera review or disclosure was required.
4. Whether the trial judge’s effort to complete the trial on an accelerated schedule denied Thompson due process or a fair trial.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions.
- The court held the prior sexual acts against N were admissible under Rule 404(b) to show a common plan or ongoing scheme and were not too remote given the continuity of abuse and the explained gap in opportunity.
- The court upheld admission of evidence of abuse of siblings and the family cat because the defense put N’s fear and state of mind in issue by arguing delayed reporting undermined credibility, and the relevant abuse occurred in N’s presence.
- The court found no Brady violation as to DSS records because the trial court followed proper procedures (in camera review and sealing) and any potentially exculpatory information had already been presented at trial.
- The court found no error in declining in camera review of medical records because Thompson failed to show a substantial basis to believe the records contained material exculpatory evidence.
- The court rejected the claim that the trial was unfairly rushed, noting defense counsel’s agreement to the schedule and the trial judge’s stated commitment to fairness over speed.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 404(b) permits admission of other acts for non-propensity purposes, including showing a common plan or scheme; in child sexual-abuse cases, prior acts against the same victim may be admitted when they reflect a continuing pattern and any gap is explained by lack of opportunity rather than abandonment of the scheme.
- Evidence of other misconduct may be admissible to explain a victim’s fear and delayed reporting when the defense affirmatively attacks credibility on that ground, particularly where the misconduct occurred in the victim’s presence.
- Evidence of physical abuse or animal abuse offered in a sexual-abuse prosecution requires careful judicial screening; admissibility depends on a concrete, case-specific link to a material issue such as the victim’s state of mind.
- For confidential records, a defendant must present a substantial basis to believe the materials contain material, favorable evidence before a court is required to conduct in camera review; Brady does not require speculative searches.
- Trial management aimed at accommodating scheduling does not violate due process absent demonstrated prejudice, especially where the defense agrees and the court maintains fairness as the controlling consideration.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Thompson’s convictions, holding that earlier sexual acts against the same victim were properly admitted to show a continuing scheme, that third-party abuse evidence was admissible to explain the victim’s fear after the defense attacked delayed reporting, and that the trial court neither violated Brady obligations nor deprived Thompson of a fair trial through its handling of confidential records and scheduling.


State v. Thompson, 139 N.C. App. 299, 533 S.E.2d 834 (2000)