The North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion in *State v. Calderon*, a case involving the conviction of Pedro Isaias Calderon for taking indecent liberties with a child. The opinion, filed Dec. 12, 2025, addresses an appeal from a divided Court of Appeals panel that partially reversed Calderon's original conviction.
On Sept. 8, 2021, a jury in Wake County Superior Court convicted Calderon of three counts of taking indecent liberties with a child. The charges stemmed from allegations that the then-40-year-old defendant kissed a 13-year-old girl, identified by the pseudonym Jocelyn to protect her identity, on three separate occasions. According to court documents, the incidents included kissing the victim on the neck outside his van and kissing her on the mouth inside his van on two separate occasions.
Judge Keith O. Gregory presided over the original trial in Wake County Superior Court. Following his conviction, Calderon appealed the decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals issued a divided opinion in 2023, published at 290 N.C. App. 344, that partially reversed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by denying Calderon's motion to dismiss, finding that while the state presented sufficient evidence for two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, there was insufficient evidence to support a third count.
As a result of this finding, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to arrest judgment on one of Calderon's indecent liberties convictions and to conduct resentencing. The majority opinion concluded that the evidence did not support all three charges as separate and distinct offenses.
However, the Court of Appeals decision was not unanimous. A dissenting judge argued that sufficient evidence existed to convict Calderon of three separate counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, contending that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Following the Court of Appeals decision, both parties filed petitions for discretionary review with the North Carolina Supreme Court, seeking review of additional issues beyond those addressed by the intermediate appellate court. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court granted both the state's and defendant's petitions, allowing for further review of the case.
The case was heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court on Feb. 11, 2025, with oral arguments presented by both sides. Justice Riggs authored the Supreme Court's opinion in the matter.
The state was represented by Attorney General Jeff Jackson, with arguments presented by Solicitor General Nicholas S. Brod. The defendant was represented by Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, with Assistant Appellate Defender John F. Carella handling the oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
The legal issues in *Calderon* center on the standards for determining when multiple instances of inappropriate contact constitute separate and distinct criminal offenses. In cases involving taking indecent liberties with a child, courts must analyze whether the evidence supports treating each alleged incident as a separate count or whether the conduct should be viewed as part of a single, continuing offense.
The North Carolina statute governing taking indecent liberties with a child is designed to protect minors from sexual exploitation and inappropriate contact by adults. The offense can encompass various forms of improper physical contact or behavior that falls short of more serious sexual assault charges but still represents criminal conduct harmful to children.
The case highlights the complexity of prosecuting cases involving multiple allegations of inappropriate contact with minors. Prosecutors must present evidence that clearly distinguishes between separate criminal acts, while defense attorneys often argue that the conduct represents a single course of behavior rather than multiple distinct offenses.
The Supreme Court's review of the case addresses both the sufficiency of evidence standards and the proper application of legal principles in cases involving multiple counts of the same offense. The court's decision will provide guidance for future prosecutions and appeals involving similar circumstances.
The Court of Appeals' split decision demonstrates the challenging nature of these determinations, with reasonable jurists reaching different conclusions about the same evidence and legal standards. The dissenting judge's view that all three counts were properly supported by the evidence reflects ongoing debates within the legal community about how to analyze complex criminal cases involving multiple alleged incidents.
The Supreme Court's opinion in *Calderon* will have implications for how North Carolina courts handle similar cases going forward, particularly regarding the standards for determining when multiple instances of inappropriate contact support separate criminal charges versus a single offense.