Lack of victim's name on indictment warrants new trial.

Byline: Bill Cresenzo

A man convicted of sexually assaulting a young girl will get a new trial because the indictment didn't identify the victim by name, a divided North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled.

In 2015, Michael Lee White was convicted of sexual offense with a child by an adult offender in Graham County. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the superseding indictment upon which he was convicted was invalid because it identified the victim as "Victim #1" instead of naming the victim, as required by short-form indictment statute for the offense.

The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, and White asked the Supreme Court for discretionary review. In a 4-2 decision, the court overturned the ruling and ordered a new trial.

"The statutory language is clear and unambiguous: it requires that the child be named as part of the allegations in the indictment," Chief Justice Cheri Beasley wrote for the court in the May 10 opinion. "In common understanding, to name someone is to identify that person in a way that is unique to that individual and enables others to distinguish between the named person and all other people. The phrase 'Victim #1' does not distinguish this victim from other children or victims."

Even if the court decided that the initials were sufficient, the indictment would still be flawed, Beasley wrote.

"The State concedes that its intent was to conceal the identity of the Child an intent at odds with the purpose of the naming requirement: to provide Notice of the essential elements of the crime charged to the accused," she wrote. "This use of the phrase 'Victim #1' does not constitute 'naming the child.'"

The decision says that whether a child should be named in an indictment is up to the General Assembly, not the courts.

"It is true that...