MERCER COUNTY — State Superior Court has supported the conviction of a former local man convicted of raping a girl and trying to buy her off from pressing charges with the offer of an all-terrain vehicle.

James C. Burk II, 34, of Murrels Inlet, S.C., formerly of Mercer County was found guilty in March 2011 of rape and other charges. The victim testified she was raped seven times between August and October 2009 in Findley Township, when she was 13 and 14; that Burk had her get a prescription for birth control pills; and he gave her alcohol and a suspected controlled substance prior to one of the incidents.

The girl told her mother in February 2010 about the incidents and state police were notified.

After Burk was lodged in Mercer County Jail, recorded telephone conversations captured Burk asking his wife to contact the victim and offering the victim an all-terrain vehicle if she recanted her story and refused to testify, police said.

Burk denied the sexual assaults took place, and said the recorded conversations show “he only wanted (the victim) to tell the truth.”

Burk was sentenced in November to 16è to 33 years in state prison. In a story about the sentencing, The Herald incorrectly reported a sentence of 28 to 60 years.

In his appeal, Burk argued that Mercer County Common Pleas Court Judge John C. Reed should not have allowed testimony from a state trooper concerning a conversation he had with Burk at court or evidence that Burk raped the girl in November 2009 in a rest stop in North Carolina, an offense he was not charged with and occurred outside the jurisdiction of Mercer County authorities.

Burk also argued for separate trials, one for the rape case and one for the intimidation of a victim case.

The trooper testified that he was at the district judge’s office for Burk’s preliminary hearing and was “engaged in a general conversation” when the trooper asked Burk if he had been abused as a child, according to the Superior Court opinion posted Oct. 9.

Burk responded that he had been molested by an uncle, but that “everything was all right with his uncle” and “they had it all worked out.”

This testimony “obviously” hurt Burk’s case, but Reed said he permitted it because jurors could have used it to conclude that Burk “perceived that sexual molestation of a child ... was of no great consequence, or that such behavior does not have an adverse impact upon the victims.”

Burk argued the testimony was not relevant that it was admitted in violation of his Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate himself.

Superior Court Judge Mary Jane Bowes, writing for a three-judge panel, agreed with Reed’s reasoning on the issue of relevance.

As to the alleged Fifth Amendment violation, Bowes said Burk needed to make that argument to Reed, and he waived it as an appeal issue for having failed to do so.

Concerning the testimony about the alleged rest-stop rape, Reed said evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible except in sex cases when the victims are the same and the testimony shows a “passion or propensity for illicit sexual relations with the victim” and suggests a “continuing course of conduct.”

Those circumstances are present in the Burk case, Bowes said, adding that Reed twice told the jury the testimony should only be considered in relation to those circumstances.

In arguing against consolidating the trials, Burk said it had a “chilling” effect on his wife because she had to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights in the intimidation case, while she wanted to testify in support of the rape charges.

Consolidation was proper because the evidence overlapped and there was no chance the jury would be confused, Bowes said. Reed allowed Burk’s wife to testify in the rape case and invoke her Fifth Amendment write in the intimidation case, and barred prosecutors from questioning her about the intimidation charges when she testified on the rape charges, Bowes said.

“The result of these rulings prevented any injustice or prejudice to (Burk), who was able to benefit from his wife’s testimony without any adverse consequences,” Bowes said.

Burk offered no proof as to how the consolidation affected his wife’s testimony, Bowes said.