In the Matter of L.K. 2025 N.C. App. Unpub. LEXIS 599 (N.C. App. 2025)

The Court of Appeals in North Carolina vacated a judgment adjudicating L.K. delinquent for indecent liberties between minors and imposing a Level 1 disposition upon him, based upon the trial court’s failure to state a standard of proof. The court stated in relevant part:

“In the case sub judice, our review of the transcripts and record reveal that at no point did the trial court announce the standard of proof by which it had adjudicated Leo delinquent. At the beginning of its ruling, the trial court merely stated that “the juvenile is delinquent of the charge of indecent liberties,” and concluded, “The Court will find that this was for the purpose of sexual desire and the Court will find the juvenile delinquent of the charge of taking indecent liberties with a child which is a Class 1 misdemeanor.” The disposition order and supplemental order are similarly devoid of any reference to a standard of proof.

[T]he trial court strongly challenged the State on the issue of the purpose of the touching, saying, “I don’t know what his intent was. You didn’t show that. His intent was for her not to tell,” then continuing after the State attempted to resume, “And because it started with the vaping. Was it the intent for her not to tell that he had the vape or not to tell — because you didn’t — or was it the TikTok, because, she said, ‘I don’t care about that. I don’t care about the TikTok.’ ” The trial court also argued with the State over the nature of Leo’s touching and the offer of money.

Thus, given the trial court’s treatment of the evidence in the case, we are unable to infer that the correct standard of proof was employed, especially given the requirement for the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt is a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution. See In re B.E., 186 N.C. App. at 660.”