A former Eastlawn Elementary School has rejected a plea offer from the Alamance County district attorney’s office that would’ve allowed him to plead guilty to a lesser crime rather than three felony sex offenses for which was indicted last week.
Daniel (“Dan”) Stephen McInnis, 45, white, male, of 632 Country Club Drive, Burlington, rejected the prosecutor’s offer to allow him to plead guilty to a crime against nature, with a sentence of probation, during a hearing in Alamance County superior court on Monday morning, based on an order that Alamance County superior court judge C. Douglas Green entered after the hearing.
Alamance County assistant district attorney Elizabeth Olivier is prosecuting the case.
An Alamance County grand jury indicted McInnis last Tuesday, April 7, on three felony charges: statutory sex offense with a child by an adult; sexual activity with a student by school personnel; and indecent liberties with a child. He was also indicted last week on sexual battery, a Class A1 misdemeanor offense under North Carolina law.
McInnis, who appeared in superior court Monday morning with his attorneys, John Cox, Jr. of Graham and Lisa Dubs of Hickory, has denied the allegations since his arrest in late December 2023.
A felony crime against nature is one of the few sex-related offenses in North Carolina that do not require registration as a sex offender, according to an analysis by Jessica Smith, a William R. Kenan Jr. distinguished professor of public law and government and director of Criminal Justice Innovation Lab at the School of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill.
The felony offenses for which he has been indicted would require McInnis to register as a convicted sex offender if he is found guilty.
McInnis is accused of engaging with a student who was nine years old at the time by allegedly “placing his genitalia” against the alleged victim’s butt, according to the bill of indictment that a grand jury returned last week. No other details concerning the alleged offenses have been disclosed.
Defense attorneys: “U-Visa” application a motive for false accusation
Meanwhile, the defense attorneys, Cox and Dubs, filed a motion on Friday, April 10, reiterating an earlier motion compel discovery of any request by the alleged victim’s family seeking assistance in applying for a “U-Visa.”
Federal immigration law allows illegal aliens who have allegedly been victims of crime and have been granted “U nonimmigrant status” to become lawful permanent residents, along with their qualifying family members such as parents and siblings, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.
The defense has previously filed a motion in February of this year, asking the judge to order the prosecutor to provide “any and all information related to any request for, letter about, correspondence about or any other information which relates to any request by the family of the victim for assistance with applying for a U-Visa.”
Olivier, the assistant D.A. who is prosecuting the case, said during an earlier hearing that no such information related to a “U-Visa” was in the file.
However, in an April 6, 2026 email to Cox, one of the attorneys representing McInnis, Oliver wrote: “Based on a recent conversation I had with the parents of the victim there was a [U-Visa] filed. I do not have any paperwork on it….”
Cox and Dubs counter in their April 10 motion that not all of the discoverable materials appear to have been provided by the prosecutor. “Particularly, in the discovery provided it appears that the alleged victim’s family has had communications requesting that documents related to the prosecution be provided to the victim’s family’s immigration attorney,” the motion states.
“If the State is allowed to provide certain discovery while withholding evidence the State doesn’t want to turn over to the defense, the possibility of undue prejudice to the defendants is exacerbated,” the defense attorneys assert in their motion to compel, citing a state law that governs pretrial procedures for discovery in superior court cases.
Moreover, the defense attorneys contend that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to obtain exculpatory evidence, as established under a 1963 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, the prosecution must turn over any significant evidence that would suggest that a defendant is innocent of the crimes charged.
MOTIVE FOR FALSE ACCUSATION ALLEGED
“Information about the victim’s family in this case using the criminal case and requesting the help of the State in obtaining a U-Visa is clearly exculpatory. It provides a motive for the false accusation in this case and is necessary information for the defendant…in order to effectively cross-examine witnesses in this case.”
– Defense motion to compel discovery
“Information about the victim’s family in this case using the criminal case and requesting the help of the State in obtaining a U-Visa is clearly exculpatory,” the defense’s motion to compel states. “It provides a motive for the false accusation in this case and is necessary information for the defendant…in order to effectively cross-examine witnesses in this case.
“In her email of April 6, 2026,” the motion to compel asserts, “the state’s attorney [Olivier] admits the prosecutor’s office has been involved in assisting the family of the victim, and/or the victim in [its] application for a U-Visa. . . The State’s assertion that they ‘do not have any paperwork on it’ defies belief and is unacceptable.”
A subsequent hearing on the motion to compel discovery is currently scheduled for Friday, April 17 in Alamance County criminal superior court.
Background on the arrest
The Burlington police department opened an investigation in early December 2023, after detectives in its Special Victims Unit (SVU) received information alleging that a school administrator at Eastlawn was involved in misconduct with a student on school property. McInnis was subsequently charged on December 29, 2023 with one count of a felony statutory sex offense on school property.
Green granted several motions earlier this year to seal certain records and materials compiled during the investigation, including statements made by then-ABSS superintendent Dr. Dain Butler and his deputy superintendent Lowell Rogers, who were among several school administrators questioned during the investigation.
On March 6, Green granted the defendant’s motion to be allowed to go onto the grounds of Smith Elementary School and Turrentine Middle School to drop off and pick up his children before and after school, to attend his children’s band concerts and soccer games.
Alamance County senior resident superior court judge Andrew (“Andy”) Hanford had granted a similar request in March 2025, as had then-senior resident superior court judge Tom Lambeth, Jr. in August 2024.
McInnis had been the principal at Eastlawn for 11 years, since November 5, 2012 and had an annual salary of $114,851.16 at the time of his arrest, ABSS officials confirmed at the time for The Alamance News.
School officials had told the newspaper last spring that McInnis had continued to remain employed with ABSS but was suspended without pay.
ABSS had not responded by press time to a subsequent inquiry regarding McInnis’ current employment status.
McInnis voluntarily surrendered his state teaching license on January 15, 2024, according to the state Department of Public Instruction.
