DURHAM, N.C. — A Duke University student said she is in shock after a Durham County judge lectured her on marriage and “old fashioned principles,” while turning down a request for a no-contact order.
The woman was seeking protection from another student for what she says was sexual contact she did not consent to and stalking.
“This was classic victim blaming,” said attorney Kerry Sutton, who represented the student at a hearing this week. The judge was essentially saying, “That is what you get for having premarital sex,” Sutton said.
Chief District Court Judge Patricia Evans said this during the hearing, according to a recording Sutton shared:
“As I sit here, I’m reminded of the reason for marriage and commitment. Now those are the old fashioned principles, but there is a rationale behind them because when we do things, because we have the opportunity or you have free choice, you can choose what you’re going to do, but you cannot choose the consequences of those actions,” Evans said, before ruling that the plaintiff had failed to prove a no-contact order was justified.
After the judge’s comments, the student started crying. She said she was worried that the student she was seeking protection from, who was present too, would see the situation as a victory and repeat his behavior.
“That was appalling to me. It was absolutely uncalled for. It was intensely unkind,” Sutton said about the judge’s comments. “I can’t even use a word to call how unprofessional it was.”
When asked about the attorney’s accusations, Evans wrote in an email that she cannot comment on a matter that is still pending, referring to her understanding that her decision will be appealed.
Evans, a Democrat, has been on the bench for about 10 years. Appointed as chief district court judge in 2019, she is up for reelection in the May 17 primary.
The female student, who said she had a panic attack during the Tuesday hearing, sought the no-contact order after she had two October encounters with the male student in his dorm room, one when she spent the night there. She said the student repeatedly bit her breasts and penetrated her with his fingers without permission, she testified.
The young woman submitted photos and in her testimony she said they showed 10 to 20 bruises from the bites.
“It felt very much like she was blaming me,” the student, who is in her late teens, said of Evan’s words from the bench. The News & Observer doesn’t name victims of alleged sexual assaults.
The plaintiff said she reported the encounter with the male student to university officials and sought a no-contact order after school resumed in 2022.
The plaintiff sought the order after she ran into the defendant and he stared at her, walked in circles around her and walked up to her twice, she testified.
She filed a complaint with Duke administrative officials and university police a few days later, she said, and received a consent no contact order by school officials, which advised the students not to interact if they are in the same area, according to statements in court.
About two weeks later, the plaintiff said she ran into the defendant in a dining hall. She said he sat down at a table near hers, and walked slowly by her.
After both incidents, she had panic attacks, she said.
The male student testified that he received consent for the sexual activity and stopped when she expressed discomfort. He denied stalking or intimidating the plaintiff. No criminal charges have been filed against him.
A no-contact order is a form of protection in North Carolina law for individuals who have been sexually assaulted or stalked by someone they do not have an established relationship with.
To receive a no-contact order, a plaintiff would need to show that the defendant committed nonconsensual sexual conduct or stalking, according to the law.
The law defines nonconsensual sexual behavior as “a lack of freely given consent” for “any intentional or knowing touching, fondling, or sexual penetration by a person, either directly or through clothing, of the sexual organs ... for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal,” including the transfer of semen.
Stalking is defined as taking one or more actions that places the person in reasonable fear for their or their family’s safety or causes substantial emotional distress due to fear of harm or continued harassment.
In addition to referring to marriage and “old fashioned principles,” Evans noted not only her conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove her case. She remarked that a no-contact order would harm the male student.
“We have a young lady here in obvious distress. We have a young man whose life could be changed forever as a result of my decision. So I weigh them both carefully,” Evans said. “And at the end of all the evidence, I have to find that the plaintiff has failed to prove grounds for issuance of a no-contact order.”
The student walked away from the situation feeling that the judicial system is laughable, she said. She said she wouldn’t recommend other alleged victims of sexual assault go through the process, she said.
Sutton told The News & Observer her client is exploring all her options, including appealing the judge’s decision or filing a complaint with the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission, which reviews allegations of judicial misconduct.
Judges are supposed to follow the North Carolina Code of Judicial conduct. In general, judges have broad discretion in their courtrooms as long as they follow seven canons that define appropriate political activities, administrative duties and avoiding impropriety in all activities.
“A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself/herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” the code states.
