Local News

Raleigh sex offender didn't violate probation, judge finds

Posted August 28, 2014

— A Raleigh sex offender who once coached girls' softball did not violate terms of his plea agreement when he showed up in the same public places as some of his teenaged victims, a Wake County judge ruled Thursday.

Raymond Lamar Green, 43, received a suspended prison sentence of 16 to 29 months and 36 months of probation after he pleaded guilty in 2012 to taking indecent liberties with a minor – charges involving five of his players, ages 14 and 15.

The terms of his probation, however, prohibit him from having any contact with the victims or their family members.

Prosecutors told Superior Court Judge Howard Manning that Green broke the conditions of his sentence last month when he didn't leave a car dealership when he saw one of the victim's fathers.

Green, of 10116 Second Star Court, admitted to Manning that he didn't immediately leave the dealership but that he told the salesman he was talking to that he had to leave the building so as not to be under the same roof with the father.

"I did what I thought was right," he said. "I left the building."

He stayed outside and looked at a few cars and left at a manager's request, Green testified. He said he called his probation officer and was told, "If I was under the same roof, I was in contact."

Manning found that Green didn't "willfully violate the terms of his probation," noting that nothing was ever written down concerning the definition of "contact."

"Instead of hiding it, he reported it immediately to his probation officer," Manning told Assistant District Attorney April Taylor. "I don't know what else you would expect the man to do."

She, however, called it a "no-brainer."

"It's been explained to him multiple times," she said, referring to a four-weekend jail sentence he received in 2013 after he failed to leave a Chili's restaurant where one of his victims had been.

In that case, Green stayed and ate, he said, because he didn't speak with her and thought it was OK.

Green, who remains on probation, has been listed with the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry since Dec. 18, 2012, and is required to stay on the list for a minimum of 10 years.

Family members of the victims were upset by Manning's ruling.

"Ray got another slap on the hands and was sent on his way," one of the victims' fathers said. "What about our children? Who stands up for our children? So far, it's not this courtroom."

29 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • 678devilish Aug 29, 2014

    He did not violate his probation and the judge finds him not guilty. Accept this verdict and please move on.

  • JustOneGodLessThanU Aug 29, 2014

    View quoted thread



    For one, they are full of non-violent drug "criminals"...often just for possession...and often for the leaf of a weed that is many times safer than alcohol or tobacco.

  • keithjinnc Aug 29, 2014

    All of these sex offenders need to be locked up! What gets me is the offenders who “physically” assault their victims get probation and a slap on the hand in our state courts, while offenders who possess or disseminate inappropriate and explicit photos of children get sentenced to multiple years in prison in federal courts. The judges of this state need to stop being so soft on these criminals and take the same approach as the federal courts and lock these people up!

  • Glass Half Full Aug 29, 2014

    It's extremely sad this monster got probation to begin with. Convicted of molesting 5 girls; he should be serving life in prison. It's a shame he has the audacity to continue to live near the families of those he abused; he's obviously not ashamed of what he did. It's awful that he continues to torture his victims and their families. As with any person who abuses children, anything less than life in prison isn't enough.

  • jwsawyer Aug 29, 2014

    I have a solution - don't let these convicts out on probation. Make them do hard labor in prison to pay for their keep. I expect convicts to be in jail.

  • djofraleigh Aug 29, 2014

    Manning found that Green didn't "willfully violate the terms of his probation," noting that nothing was ever written down concerning the definition of "contact."

    By the judges thinking, the sex offender could sit at her booth, stand behind her in line, sit in a car outside her house or anything except 'touch' her or call her or write her, I assume. The court is to blame for 'vague' language and allowing a trusted adult coach to have sex with his underage team without following through with rape charges, reducing to indecent liberties, and going free. Any further damage done by this offender is on the hands of the judges. Like the one commenter noted, had he "looked" at the girls naked pictures on the net he would get 25 years, but having sex with four or five of them got him no time.

  • Roger Connor Aug 29, 2014

    So, he goes to a movie theater, arriving after the lights have dimmed, takes a seat in the back section. After the movie, a "victim" sitting in the front section notices him - he is going to be cited for a violation. Does NOT appear to me that that is "justice".

  • djofraleigh Aug 29, 2014

    This man is getting lots of sympathy from comments. Why? He knew to cover himself by calling the PO from the car lot, but not sense enough to leave the place. Walking out the door isn't leaving the place of business.

    Is he wanting taunt or tease the victim's family?

    Going into a eatery, upon seeing the victim, he should have left. Did he really think he had to sit at their table to violate his probation?

    I say the girls should stand up and point at him shouting "there is the grown man, the coach my parents trusted that "raped" me before 16."

    Why did the DA settle for indecent liberties instead of the statutory rape?

    I'd say this man is still sniffing after the girls. Does he think he is not a bad man? He is. Hope this is the last time we hear about any of this.

  • Mike Wells Aug 29, 2014

    The terms of this guys probation is stupid but I guess you do what you have to do so you do not go to jail. I have read this article over and over and no where do I see Mr. Green coming in contact with the victim. The victim has the right for Mr. Green not to be close proximity to the victim not the parents and family. Talking about being paronoid.

  • Lightfoot3 Aug 29, 2014

    ""Ray got another slap on the hands and was sent on his way," one of the victims' fathers said. " - article


    No, he has a right to buy cars, eat at restaurants, etc. It's also ridiculous that he has to leave if they show up, because I suspect they might be purposely showing up to harass him. I could see him having to leave a place if they were there first, but if he's there first he should be allowed to stay. And contact means contact. This "under the same roof" definition is silly and illogical. In some places, like a hockey game, they could be under the same roof and not even know it.

More...