N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 607 took effect on 1 July 1984 and does not apply to cases governed by the earlier evidentiary rules.

State v. McLeod · filed 1984-10-02Rule 607

G.S. 8C-1, Rule 607 became effective 1 July 1984, and has no application to this case.

Section 8C-1’s Evidence Code does not govern actions commenced before 1 July 1984; the earlier evidence rules apply.

Pasour v. Pierce · filed 1985-08-20

Because this action was commenced prior to 1 July 1984, the North Carolina rules governing the admission of evidence before the adoption of the North Carolina Evidence Code control. See Editor’s Note, G.S. 8C-1.

Section 8C-1 applies to actions commenced after 1 July 1984 and cannot be applied before its effective date.

State v. Lane · filed 1985-11-19

This rule remained in effect until the effective date of G.S. 8C-1, which applies to actions commenced after 1 July 1984. The court had no authority to implement a statute before its effective date.

Rule 606(b) governs juror competency in inquiries into verdict validity for trials held on or after July 1, 1984.

Smith v. Price · filed 1986-02-18Rule 606(b)

Effective 1 July 1984, N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 606(b) controls the question of competency of jurors as witnesses upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict. Because this case was tried prior to that date, Rule 606(b) does not apply, and we must look to prior law to determine whether the trial judge properly received the juror’s affidavit and testimony.

Section 8C-1’s Rules of Evidence did not apply to a case tried before their 1 July 1984 effective date.

State v. Riddick · filed 1986-03-05

We have not relied on the new North Carolina Rules of Evidence, N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, in resolving the evidentiary question because this case was tried before these rules became effective on 1 July 1984.

Rule 404(b) governs the admissibility of other-crimes evidence in actions and proceedings commenced after 1 July 1984.

State v. Shamsid-Deen · filed 1989-06-08Rule 404(b)

For actions and proceedings commenced after 1 July 1984, the admissibility of evidence of crimes for which the defendant is not on trial is governed by Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. See N.C.G.S. § 8C-1 editor's note; 1983 N.C.Sess.Laws ch. 701, § 3. The present case was tried prior to the effective date of the Rules of Evidence.

Rule 403 does not apply to a case tried before its effective date of 1 July 1984.

State v. Noble · filed 1990-05-10Rule 403

Rule 403 did not become effective until 1 July 1984 and does not apply to this case.

The Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings, so the trial court need not perform Rule 403 balancing before admitting a photograph at sentencing.

State v. Daughtry · filed 1995-07-28Rule 1101(b)(3)

The Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (1992).

Amended Rule 702 applies to criminal actions arising on or after October 1, 2011; the filing of the first indictment determines when a criminal action arises.

State v. Gamez · filed 2013-07-16Rule 702(a)

Based upon the amendment-to Session Law 2011-283, the amendments to Rule 702 became effective 1 October 2011 and apply to actions arising on or after that date. ... While there was a second bill of indictment filed on 12 December 2011 that was subsequently joined for trial, this criminal proceeding arose on the date of the filing of the first indictment.

Amended Rule 702(a) applies the federal Daubert standard to expert testimony.

State v. McGrady · filed 2014-01-21Rule 702(a)

Given the changes wrought by our legislature, however, it is clear that amended Rule 702 should be applied pursuant to the federal standard as articulated in Daubert.

Evidence of an empty clothing rack is relevant under Rule 401 when it makes a theft more probable, and admissible under Rule 403 when its probative value outweighs prejudice.

State v. Odom · filed 1990-07-03Rules 401 and 403

Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 401. ... That Russell observed an empty rack in the section of the store where he knew men’s robes were displayed and sold is relevant because this evidence makes it more probable that a theft had taken place. Moreover, the probative value of the empty rack outweighed any prejudice the defendant may have suffered by its admission. Testimony that robes had been removed from the rack was stricken and the jury was instructed not to consider it. We hold the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.

Rule 402 permits relevant evidence of criminal activity away from the premises when it bears on the foreseeability of an attack.

Sawyer v. Carter · filed 1984-12-04Rule 402

Rather, we recite the basic rule that all relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded by some specific rule, see G.S. 8C-1, Rule 402; 1 Stansbury’s N.C. Evidence § 77, n. 9 (2d Rev. ed. 1982), and state directly what was implied in Wesley v. Greyhound, supra, that evidence pertaining to the foreseeability of criminal attack shall not be limited to prior criminal acts occurring on the premises.

Rule 402 permits exclusion of testimony that has no logical tendency to prove a fact in issue.

State v. Price · filed 1985-04-02Rule 402

There is simply nothing linking the woman’s presence in front of the defendant’s house to the issues involved in defendant’s trial, and the trial court properly sustained the state’s objection because the testimony was not relevant.

Section 8C-1, Rule 403 permits a court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by its unfairly inflammatory effect.

State v. Hamilton · filed 1985-10-29

Regardless of a statement’s relevancy, the court retains discretionary authority to exclude it if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its unfairly inflammatory effect. ... While the disputed evidence may have tended to evoke emotional responses, it was also highly relevant for the same reasons, as discussed above. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude the statements.

Rules 401 and 403 allow evidence of a victim’s appearance when it is relevant to excessive force and is not unfairly prejudicial.

State v. Moxley · filed 1985-12-31Rules 401 and 403

This evidence was relevant under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 401 on the issue of excessive force, was not prejudicial under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 403, and was not inflammatory under our old rules.

Rule 403 does not exclude a defendant’s admission merely because its tendency to prove guilt prejudices him.

State v. Moses · filed 1986-04-02Rule 403

The fact that it would prejudice the defendant because it would tend to convince the jury of his guilt is a reason for admitting, not for excluding, the evidence.

Rule 403 does not require exclusion of statements merely because they may prejudice the defendant when their content is relevant to intent.

State v. Boone · filed 1986-03-18Rule 403

The actual contents of the statements attributed to defendant are relevant to show whether the intent of the telephone calls was to abuse, annoy, threaten, terrify, harass or embarrass the victims of the calls. ... We hold that the trial court did not err in allowing witnesses to testify about the actual contents of the annoying telephone calls.

Rule 402 excludes evidence of another person's guilt when its link to the charged crime is too speculative to justify admission.

State v. Allen · filed 1986-05-06Rule 402

Defendant’s proffered evidence, having been offered to refute the eyewitnesses’ identification of defendant as the robber, was so weak, so speculative and uncertain, that it did not possess sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence. The Rules of Evidence simply do not help defendant on this issue.

Rules 105 and 404(b) permit testimony placing a defendant at another bank on the day of a robbery for the limited purposes of showing presence in the city and corroborating a witness.

State v. Alston · filed 1986-05-06Rules 105 and 404(b)

The court did not err in permitting Diane Manley, a teller at another New Bern bank, to testify that one of the defendants came into that bank on the day of the robbery and got change for a one hundred dollar bill; for this testimony was offered and received for the limited but proper purpose of showing that the defendants were in New Bern on the day of the robbery and to corroborate the testimony of Jenkins. G.S. 8C-1, N.C. Rules of Evidence 105 and 404(b).

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to prove a fact in issue.

State v. Sloan · filed 1986-06-03Rule 401

Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to prove a fact in issue in the case. ... See also N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (Cum. Supp. 1985). ... Rather, his testimony logically tends to prove that penetration of the rectum did occur. We hold, therefore, that this evidence was relevant and properly admitted by the trial court.

Rule 403 does not require exclusion of relevant evidence merely because it harms the defendant; unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh its probative value.

State v. Mercer · filed 1986-06-03Rule 403

Such highly probative evidence necessarily is prejudicial to the defendant-otherwise it would not have such great probative value. However, we do not find its prejudicial effect to be “undue” or to substantially outweigh its probative value so as to require exclusion pursuant to Rule 403. We therefore find no error in the trial judge’s discretionary ruling denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude the watch and ring.

Evidence with some probative value on a defendant’s intent is relevant under Rule 401.

State v. Prevette · filed 1986-07-02Rule 401

Because the “unfinished business” statement had some probative value on the issue of defendant’s intent to kill the victim, we hold that the evidence was relevant and properly admitted.

Rules 401 and 402 require evidence to bear on a consequential fact before it is admissible.

McNabb v. Town of Bryson City · filed 1986-08-05Rules 401 and 402

The cornerstone of admissibility of all evidence is that it must be relevant. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 402. To be relevant the evidence must have some “tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” G.S. 8C-1, Rule 401. ... We hold the trial court correctly excluded the records of plaintiffs attempted suicide and back pain in 1972.

Rule 402 permits exclusion of evidence that is irrelevant to the injuries for which a plaintiff seeks recovery.

Wagner v. Barbee · filed 1986-09-02Rule 402

Defendant has failed to demonstrate how evidence that Wagner was intoxicated on two occasions in June and December of 1983 is relevant to the issues of the injuries for which she seeks to recover in the present case. The trial court, therefore, properly excluded this evidence. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 402.

Rules 401 and 403 allow evidence that tends to show motive, presence, relationships, or guilty knowledge when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Brooks · filed 1986-11-04Rules 401 and 403

Regarding items 3, 4 and 5 above, we hold that this evidence was clearly admissible under G.S. 8C-1, Rules 401 and 403. ... In light of the charges against defendant and the theory of prosecution we hold that this evidence was relevant in that it tended to show defendant’s motive, presence, and relationship to the actual perpetrators, as well as guilty knowledge. ... Further, we perceive no danger of unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed the probative value of this evidence.

Rule 403 does not require exclusion of prior convictions when their admission does not unfairly prejudice the defendant.

State v. Gainey · filed 1987-01-20Rule 403

Defendant also contends that the admission into evidence of three other convictions, two for driving while impaired and one for hit and run, was error because the defendant was unfairly prejudiced by the admission of the evidence, citing G.S. 8C-1, Rule 403. For the reasons expressed in the preceding paragraph, we find no merit to defendant’s contention.

Rule 402 excludes evidence of a plaintiff’s separate lawsuit against a witness when that lawsuit is irrelevant to the issues being tried.

Cates v. Wilson · filed 1986-12-16Rule 402

We hold that evidence of plaintiffs’ separate lawsuit against Dr. Wein was irrelevant under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, and that its admission contravenes the strong public policy favoring settlement of controversies out of court.

Rule 402 excludes irrelevant references to a physician’s participation as a defendant in the case.

Campbell v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 1987-02-17Rule 402

However, we hold, following Cates v. Wilson, 83 N.C.App. 448, 350 S.E.2d 898 (1986), that the court properly excluded references to Dr. Deyton's participation as a defendant. Specifically, any such references were properly excluded as irrelevant under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence and as contravening the strong public policy favoring settlement of controversies out of court.

Rule 401 permits evidence implicating another person in the charged crime when it also tends to be inconsistent with the defendant’s guilt.

State v. Cotton · filed 1987-01-06Rule 401

Under Rule 401 such evidence must tend both to implicate another and be inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant.

Rules 401 and 402 make evidence of another person’s conviction inadmissible when it has no tendency to prove a consequential fact in the defendant’s case.

State v. Brown · filed 1987-04-07Rules 401 and 402

As to that charge against the defendant, the evidence of the previous convictions of the other men was irrelevant under Rule 401 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, because it did not have “any tendency to make the existence of any fact ... of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1986). Being irrelevant, the evidence was not admissible. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1986).

Rule 403 permits exclusion of reputation testimony when its relevance is far outweighed by unreliability and unwarranted prejudice.

Booe v. Shadrick · filed 1987-04-07Rule 403

Any possible relevance of the testimony is far outweighed by its unreliability and by the unwarranted prejudice the evidence would produce.

Rule 407 does not exclude evidence of later safety measures taken by others on other properties.

Murrow v. Daniels · filed 1987-05-05Rule 407

The testimony of another motel operator as to security measures that he took after the incident involving plaintiff at defendants' motel did not violate G.S. 8C-1, Rule 407, N.C. Rules of Evidence, as defendants contend. For that rule applies only to remedial measures "which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur," and the evidence involved was as to measures taken by other persons on other properties.

Rule 403 requires unfair prejudice; the fact that evidence favors one party does not alone justify excluding it.

Matthews v. James · filed 1987-12-15Rule 403

We note at the outset that all evidence favorable to plaintiff will be, by definition, prejudicial to defendants. The test under Rule 403 is whether that prejudice to defendants is unfair.

Rule 401 makes evidence relevant when it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable.

Mosley & Mosley Builders, Inc. v. Landin Ltd. · filed 1987-11-03Rule 401

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” G.S. 8C-1, Rule 401. ... In our view, this evidence was relevant to show Pomona Associates’ intent to develop the mall in phases and to show that the first phase consisted of the first floors of the two buildings.

Rule 401 makes evidence relevant when it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable.

Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Lieben · filed 1988-04-05Rule 401

N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” ... We find the evidence tended to make the existence of a fact of consequence to the determination more probable or less probable. Accordingly, we conclude the evidence was relevant and properly admitted at trial, and we overrule this assignment of error.

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant if it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable; evidence of a planned custody action can be relevant to a claim that the children’s mother prompted their accusations.

State v. Helms · filed 1988-05-05Rule 401

Evidence is relevant when it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1986). This evidence tends to support and make more plausible defendant’s evidence that Diane Rogers suborned the boys’ testimony.

Rules 401 and 402 make evidence relevant and admissible when it has some tendency to make a fact at issue more probable.

State v. Childress · filed 1987-12-02Rules 401 and 402

The defendant contends this evidence is not relevant as relevancy is defined in N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401, and should have been excluded pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402. We hold that these three items of evidence had some tendency to make a fact at issue in this case more probable. That makes the three items relevant and admissible.

Rule 411 does not apply to liability insurance evidence offered to show agency when the evidence does not tend to show agency at the relevant time.

Smith v. Starnes · filed 1988-02-02Rule 411

As the items in question do not tend to show agency on the date of the accident, G.S. 8C-1, Rule 411 has no application. Further, the documents are not relevant and are thus inadmissible. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 401 and 402.

Rule 402 permits relevant evidence of criminal acts near a business’s premises to show foreseeability of an attack, unless a specific rule excludes it.

Murrow v. Daniels · filed 1988-02-03Rule 402

We agree that evidence of criminal acts occurring near the premises in question may be relevant to the question of foreseeability and hold that such evidence is admissible unless excluded by some specific rule.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of prior statements offered for impeachment when their prejudicial effect substantially outweighs their value for assessing credibility.

State v. Hunt · filed 1989-05-04Rule 403

However, the inculpatory substance of the statement and the doubt surrounding other inculpatory evidence compels the conclusion that the trial court failed to apply Rule 403 correctly.

Rule 402 excludes evidence that is irrelevant under Rule 401.

State v. Crandell · filed 1988-06-30Rule 402

The items were unrelated to this case and therefore did not qualify as relevant evidence under Rule 401. Because they were not relevant, they were not admissible. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1986).

Rule 401 permits hair comparison evidence when it tends to show that a sexual assault occurred, even if the defendant’s identity is undisputed.

State v. McNicholas · filed 1988-06-30Rule 401

The hair comparison testimony is clearly relevant on the issue of whether the victim was sexually assaulted. That a hair belonging to someone other than the victim was found in her pubic area tends to show that the person from whom the hair came could have engaged in sexual contact with the victim. That the hair is microscopically consistent with one belonging to defendant supports the victim’s testimony that defendant sexually assaulted her.

Rules 401 and 402 make evidence inadmissible when it does not tend to prove a fact relevant to the issue being tried.

State v. Barber · filed 1989-02-21Rules 401 and 402

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” G.S. 8C-1, Rule 401. “Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” G.S. 8C-1, Rule 402. ... We conclude that the evidence in question was not relevant to the State’s burden of proving that defendant was guilty of driving while impaired.

Rules 401 and 403 permit relevant testimony about a party’s reaction to an event when it is not unfairly prejudicial.

Mosley & Mosley Builders, Inc. v. Landin Ltd. · filed 1990-03-20Rules 401 and 403

After careful review, we find that plaintiffs testimony concerning his reaction to the news that his property had been removed from the mall was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.

Rules 401 and 403 permit evidence explaining an officer’s presence and conduct when it is relevant and its probative value is not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Ferguson · filed 1992-03-17Rules 401 and 403

Upon reviewing the transcript, we find the statements were relevant to explain the officer’s presence at defendant’s residence, his reason for approaching defendant, and the nature of the conversation between the officer and defendant. ... We further conclude the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Rules 402 and 403 govern whether a forecast of airport activity is admissible as evidence of damages from a flight easement.

City of Statesville v. Cloaninger · filed 1992-04-07

We disagree. Generally all relevant evidence is admissible. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1988). However, the probative value of the evidence must substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (1988). This evidence, which was prepared for the City of Statesville Municipal Airport, was relevant to show the types of aircraft that would be using the easement, the frequency of the use, and how extensive usage there would be across the easement, all of which related to the damages suffered by the property owner. Thus we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting this evidence.

Evidence that a coconspirator possessed a pistol is relevant and admissible when a bullet found near the shooting victim has markings consistent with that pistol.

State v. Soles · filed 1995-07-05Rule 401, Rule 402, Rule 403

Relevant evidence is that which has the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992). Relevant evidence is admissible, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1992); however, relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (1992). ... In the instant case, Donal Wright’s possession of a Taurus .357 pistol on 19 October 1989 is relevant where the victim died from gunshot wounds, a spent .38/.357 bullet was found in close proximity to the victim’s body, and this bullet had markings consistent with those of a Taurus pistol.

Rule 401 treats testimony that corroborates a witness’s identification as relevant, and Rule 403 permits its admission when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Serzan · filed 1995-07-18Rule 401; Rule 403

Since defendant was on the premises of the motel less than twenty-four hours before the robbery was committed, the testimony of Ms. Smith was relevant in establishing the identity of defendant because it tended to corroborate the testimony of Ms. Skinner and made it more probable than not that defendant was the perpetrator of the crime. Therefore, such testimony was admissible under Rule 401. ... We find that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant’s case and thus overrule defendant’s assignment of error.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of expert opinion when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risks of misleading the jury or confusing the issues.

State v. Spencer · filed 1995-08-01Rule 403

In view of the evidence before the trial court tending to show that a lack of penile response to sexual stimuli involving children is not probative of one’s guilt or innocence of child sexual abuse, we question, without deciding, the relevance of Dr. Gullick’s testimony, but agree with the trial court that any probative value it may have had was substantially outweighed by the risk that the testimony could mislead the jury, confuse the issues, and suggest a decision on an improper basis, i.e., the results of the test itself.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of cumulative impeachment evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion and undue delay.

State v. Burr · filed 1995-09-08Rule 403

Thus, the evidence contained in the DSS record would have, for the most part, been merely cumulative, and any probative value for impeachment purposes was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion and undue delay.

Expert testimony about murder victims’ pain is relevant and admissible in the guilt phase when it helps show premeditation and deliberation.

State v. Vick · filed 1995-09-08Rule 403

This Court has held that expert testimony concerning the pain and suffering of the victims in a first-degree murder case is relevant and admissible to assist the jury in ascertaining whether the defendant was acting with premeditation and deliberation. ... The evidence was relevant and admissible to show premeditation and deliberation.

Rules 401 and 402 allow a relevant recording to rebut expert testimony, while Rule 403 permits its admission when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Womble · filed 1996-07-31Rules 401, 402, and 403

Similarly, we find that the tape recording was relevant and admissible under Rules 401 and 402, and was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.

Rules 401 and 403 permit evidence identifying a victim as a police officer when that status helps explain the crime and the danger of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value.

State v. Larry · filed 1997-03-07Rules 401 and 403

After reviewing the transcript, we conclude that the challenged evidence was relevant and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the danger of unfair prejudice did not outweigh the probative value.

Rules 401 and 403 allow evidence of a defendant’s conduct at the victims’ funeral when it bears on the circumstances of the murders and intent and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Richmond · filed 1998-02-06

Therefore, this evidence was relevant under Rule 401. ... The trial court was within its discretion in ruling that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Rules 401 and 403 permit relevant testimony that corroborates a witness unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Ward · filed 2001-11-09Rules 401 and 403

This evidence was offered to corroborate the testimony of codefendant Williams, a key witness for the State, as to the events leading up to the murder. As such, the evidence was relevant and admissible. Furthermore, defendant has not demonstrated that the jury’s verdict was based on any unfair prejudice resulting from attorney Chichester’s appearance on the witness stand. Accordingly, we detect no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to allow the testimony, and defendant’s assignment of error fails.

Rules 401 and 403 permit testimony tending to show that defendants devised a scheme to avoid criminal liability when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Escoto · filed 2004-02-03Rules 401 and 403

In the case before us, Williamson’s testimony was relevant because it tended to prove that defendant and his co-defendant concocted a scheme to avoid liability for their criminal actions. ... Further, the testimony should not have been excluded on the basis of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 which provides for the exclusion of relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.”

Rules 401 and 403 allow relevant demonstrative evidence unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Allen · filed 2004-09-07Rules 401 and 403

We conclude that State’s exhibit 32 was relevant evidence in that testimony was introduced that the burns were round in shape, and ... inconsistent with a bum pattern caused by a curling iron. Defendant has not shown that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Section 8C-1, Rules 401–403, permits relevant vehicle identification testimony based on a probation officer’s familiarity with the defendant when Rule 403 does not require its exclusion.

State v. Hines · filed 2004-10-19

Accordingly, this evidence was highly relevant under Rule 401 and admissible under Rule 402, and Rule 403 did not require its exclusion.

Rules 402 and 403 allow evidence of drug possession when it is part of the same circumstances surrounding the charged firearm possession.

State v. Bailey · filed 2008-04-01Rules 402, 403

Only relevant evidence is admissible, and even relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice[.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 402, 403 (2007). ... Here, evidence of defendant's possession of drugs was part of the same set of circumstances surrounding the possession of the gun. Thus, the evidence was properly admitted.

Rules 401 and 403 allow testimony about a perceived weapon when it is relevant to whether the victim reasonably believed a weapon was displayed and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Lawrence · filed 2008-08-05Rule 401, Rule 403

The trial court did not err by concluding that the statement was relevant to the question of whether Defendant “display[ed] a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article which [Brown] reasonably believe[d] to be a dangerous or deadly weapon[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.2. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining under Rule 403 that the “probative value [of the evidence was not] substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice^]” Rule 403.

Rules 401 and 403 permit evidence of a child complainant’s fear of the defendant when it bears on whether abuse occurred and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State of North Carolina v. Davis · filed 2008-08-05Rules 401 and 403

The issue before the jury was whether K.T. had been sexually abused by defendant. Evidence of K.T.’s state of mind, including her. fear of defendant, was relevant to this issue. Further, defendant cites no authority, and we find none, that suggests that the trial court acted outside the bounds of reason in determining that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We accordingly hold the trial court did not commit error, much less plain error, in admitting evidence concerning KT.’s state of mind.

Rule 403 permits autopsy photographs that illustrate the manner of killing and bear on a disputed claim of self-defense when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or needless repetition.

State v. Early · filed 2009-01-06Rule 403

The eight autopsy photographs depicted location of wounds and whether they were entrance or exit wounds. Because these photos tended to illustrate the manner of the killing and were in fact probative to the issue of self-defense, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing these photographs to be introduced at trial.

Rules 401, 403, and 404(b) permit photographs of an unsanitary home when they help identify where the alleged abuse occurred, are not unduly prejudicial, and do not show conduct in conformity with a character trait.

State v. Mabry · filed 2009-03-03

We do not find that the trial court erred in admitting the photos as they were relevant, not unduly prejudicial, and did not constitute prohibited character evidence.

Rules 401 and 403 permit testimony about cocaine’s street value in a trafficking case when it is relevant and does not unfairly prejudice the defendant.

State v. Brunson · filed 2009-08-04Rule 401; Rule 403

In accord with McCoy, we find the evidence in the instant case was relevant, and there was no prejudice to defendant by its admission.

Rules 401 and 403 permit a properly founded demonstration that is relevant to a disputed fact and is neither misleading nor unfairly prejudicial.

State v. Anderson · filed 2009-10-06Rules 401 and 403

The State laid a proper foundation to establish the relevancy of Dr. Nakagawa’s shaken baby syndrome demonstration. This demonstration was neither misleading to the jury nor unfairly prejudicial to defendant.

Rule 403 permits crime scene photographs used to illustrate testimony when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Stitt · filed 2009-12-08Rule 403

Moreover, we find that the State made use of the photographs in conjunction with testimony for illustrative purposes only and that the photographs were not used to inflame the jury’s passions. Accordingly, we find no error in the admission of the four photographs to which defendant objected.

Evidence of gang affiliation and drug dealing can be admitted when it tends to show another objective for an altercation and to refute a claim of self-defense.

State v. Kirby · filed 2010-08-17Rule 401; Rule 403

Demonstrating gang affiliation and the selling of illegal drugs is clearly relevant to show that defendant could have had a different objective in mind when the altercation took place and could refute defendant’s claim of self-defense. Defendant presents no evidence that this is not a reasonable conclusion and that the trial court abused its discretion in any way. Consequently, defendant’s assignment of error is without merit, and the trial court did not err.

Rule 403 permits photographs of a homicide victim to illustrate relevant testimony when their use is not unduly repetitive or unfairly prejudicial.

State v. Bedford · filed 2010-12-07Rule 403

In denying defendant’s motion, the trial court correctly noted the standard under Rule 403 to be applied, and concluded that, because the two photographs showed different portions of the body, they were not repetitious. These photographs of Ms. Lewis’ decomposed body were used to illustrate the testimony of law enforcement officers who unearthed her body. We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision regarding these photographs.

Rule 403 permits relevant evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, even if the evidence also has an emotional impact.

State v. Devega · filed 2018-01-16Rule 403

We conclude the surveillance video at issue in this case is an exception to the general rule. This evidence is relevant and shows the context and circumstances of the crime itself, even though it also contains victim impact evidence. The surveillance video depicts the location of Anderson's body behind the counter, evidence of her injuries, how Hewitt discovered her, and the timing of his discovery. Therefore, we determine the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.

Rules 401 and 403 permit exclusion of testimony about an unrelated sexual assault when it does not tend to prove a disputed fact and its potential to confuse the jury outweighs its probative value.

State v. Alonzo · filed 2018-08-21Rules 401, 403

Additionally, we uphold the trial court’s decision to exclude portions of Defendant’s proposed testimony regarding the unrelated sexual assault of his other daughter by another person under Rule 401 and find it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude this testimony under Rule 403.

Rules 401 and 403 allow a photograph of a defendant's tattoo when it helps establish identity and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Miller · filed 2018-09-18

Here, defendant's tattoo, while relevant to prove his identity, does not imply defendant's guilt or that he is more likely to commit a violent offense. Thus, the probative value of defendant's tattoo is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.

Rules 401 and 403 allow a court to exclude evidence that does not affect a consequential fact or whose limited relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.

Desmond v. The News & Observer Publ'g Co. · filed 2018-12-18Rules 401 and 403

We conclude the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence under Rule 401 or Rule 403 and did not prevent defendants from presenting evidence of truth of the statements.

Rules 401, 402, and 403 allow testimony about witness intimidation when it is relevant to guilt or credibility and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Smith · filed 2019-01-15Rules 401, 402, 403

The challenged testimony was relevant and its probative value significant to both the issues of Defendant’s knowledge of his guilt and Brown’s credibility, and was not substantially outweighed by any undue prejudice.

Rules 401 and 403 permit evidence of domestic violence when it helps explain a victim’s delay in reporting sexual abuse and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Betts · filed 2019-09-03Rules 401 and 403

The evidence of domestic violence was not substantially more prejudicial than probative, and went directly to the victim’s fear or apprehension in reporting the sexual abuse.

Rules 401 and 403 permit domestic violence evidence that explains a child complainant’s delayed report and PTSD diagnosis when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Betts · filed 2021-06-11Rules 401 and 403

The domestic violence evidence was relevant pursuant to Rule 401 to offer an explanation as to why M.C. delayed reporting defendant’s crimes and aided the jury’s understanding of M.C.’s PTSD diagnosis. The domestic violence evidence was not more prejudicial than probative so as to be excluded under Rule 403 because it went directly to an issue in the case—M.C.’s credibility.

Rules 401 and 402 permit a prior controlled substance conviction to be admitted as relevant evidence of whether an object is drug paraphernalia when § 90-113.21(b) identifies that conviction as a factor.

State v. Bailey · filed 2008-06-03Rules 401 and 402

Defendant also argues the trial court erred in admitting defendant's prior conviction in violation of North Carolina Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. ... Thus, under the purview of the statute, defendant's prior conviction for sale and delivery of cocaine is relevant to determine whether the Brillo pad and tool socket discovered in defendant's right back pocket were drug paraphernalia.

Rule 403 permits a court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; admitting an in-court identification is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

State v. Robinson · filed 2015-06-02Rule 403

Based on the foregoing, the trial court concluded that although it had been more than twelve years between the crime and confrontation, the in-court identification was admissible under Rule 403 and overruled defendant’s objection. ... Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Tabitha’s in-court identification of defendant.

Rules 702 and 703 permit a qualified expert to give a helpful opinion based on an examination, consultations, and reports.

Jones ex rel. Jones v. Hughes · filed 1993-05-18Rules 702 and 703

We find Dr. Warren’s testimony was properly admitted. He was qualified as an expert, his opinion was certainly helpful to the jury, and he properly based his opinion upon his own examination of Jodi, consultations with her orthodontist and endodontist, and a review of their reports.

Rule 405(a) bars expert testimony about a character trait when offered as circumstantial evidence of behavior.

State v. Mixion · filed 1993-05-18Rule 405(a)

We must conclude the trial court erred, under Rule 405(a), in admitting Dr. Gaby's opinion that Ms. Mixion was not homicidal.

Rules 401 and 705 permit admission of relevant materials an expert used in forming an opinion.

Workman v. Workman · filed 1992-07-07Rules 401 and 705

Plaintiff’s own expert testified that he used the letters in forming his opinion and that he advised plaintiff’s counsel based upon material in the letters. We find the letters admissible pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1988), defining relevant evidence to mean evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 705 (1988), requiring experts to disclose underlying facts and data for their opinions.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony about alcohol-related brain impairment when it could help the jury decide whether a defendant premeditated and deliberated.

State v. Daniel · filed 1993-06-04Rule 702

Expert testimony that, as a result of his chronic alcohol abuse, the defendant suffered from organic impairment of brain functioning and from a loss of brain tissue which impaired his ability to think, plan, or reflect could assist the jury in determining a fact at issue — whether the defendant had premeditated and deliberated.

Rules 403 and 702 permit expert evidence of a complainant’s trauma disorder for corroboration when it helps the jury and its probative value warrants admission, but not solely to prove that rape occurred.

State v. Hall · filed 1992-01-31Rules 403 and 702

The trial court should balance the probative value of evidence of post-traumatic stress, or rape trauma, syndrome against its prejudicial impact under Evidence Rule 403. It should also determine whether admission of this evidence would be helpful to the trier of fact under Evidence Rule 702. ... In no case may the evidence be admitted substantively for the sole purpose of proving that a rape or sexual abuse has in fact occurred.

Rule 702 permits a qualified forensic pathologist to give opinions within his expertise that help the jury.

State v. Annadale · filed 1991-08-14Rule 702

As a forensic pathologist, Dr. Butts was well qualified to provide testimony which was within his area of expertise and helpful to the jurors. Dr. Butts was subject to thorough cross-examination by defendant concerning his testimony, and any apparent discrepancies therein. The trial judge did not err in permitting Dr. Butts to give his opinion as to the cause of the victim’s death.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony on a subject when it would help the fact finder understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue.

State v. Crawford · filed 1991-08-14Rule 702

The subject matter of the expert testimony must merely be such that it would be helpful to the fact finder.

Rule 702 permits an expert’s opinion that a substance could contain cocaine when a positive preliminary test supports it; the lack of a complete analysis affects the opinion’s weight, not its admissibility.

State v. White · filed 1991-10-01Rule 702

Though not a positive opinion that the substance in the cellophane package contained cocaine, the analyst’s opinion that the substance “could” contain cocaine was properly admissible. The opinion was not based upon mere speculation, instead it was based upon a preliminary color test with a positive result.

Rule 705 permits an expert to give an opinion without first disclosing the underlying facts or data unless an adverse party specifically requests them; a general objection does not preserve that request.

State v. Johnson · filed 1992-02-18

Our review of the record reveals that while the defendant made a general objection to this testimony, he did not specifically request disclosure of the underlying facts or data pursuant to Rule 705. A general objection to the expert’s opinion will not suffice to preserve a specific objection or request regarding the testimony of the expert.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony about parental and child responses to abuse allegations when that specialized knowledge helps jurors understand the evidence.

State v. Speller · filed 1991-05-07Rule 702

We find that this testimony was proper under G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 as being “specialized knowledge [which would] assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence” since a lay jury could be expected to be unfamiliar with the parental responses to allegations of abuse and the responses of abused children to those to whom they look for help.

Rule 703 permits an expert to give an opinion based on facts already in evidence without personal knowledge of those facts.

Waynick Construction, Inc. v. York · filed 1984-09-04Rule 703

The facts upon which the architect intended to rely in answering the question were already in evidence through defendants’ other technical witness. As such, personal knowledge was not a prerequisite for him to give an opinion. State v. Grady, 38 N.C. App. 152, 247 S.E. 2d 624 (1982); see 1 H. Brandis, N.C. Evidence § 137 at 546 (1982); G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 703 (Supp. 1983). Accordingly, the court erred in excluding the architect’s opinion as to cost of repair, especially in view of the fact that the trial took place before the court, not a jury.

Rule 405(a) does not bar expert psychological testimony about a witness’s mental condition when the testimony addresses whether that condition suggests fabrication rather than the witness’s character.

State v. Heath · filed 1985-10-15Rule 405(a)

Defendant argues that the admission of this testimony violates G.S. 8C-1, Rule 405(a) which provides in part: "Expert testimony on character or a trait of character is not admissible as circumstantial evidence of behavior." We disagree. We observe first that the prosecutor's question was directed not to character but to the existence of a mental condition which might cause Vickie to fantasize or fabricate her account of the incident at the time she reported it in June, 1983.

Section 8C-1, Rule 706 permits a trial court to appoint an expert to appraise the goodwill and other value of a professional practice.

Dorton v. Dorton · filed 1985-11-19

Moreover, the trial court has the authority under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 706 to appoint an expert witness to appraise the'goodwill and other value of plaintiffs practice.

Rules 703 and 705 allow an expert to rely on facts or data that need not be admissible and give the opposing party the right to require disclosure of that basis on cross-examination.

State v. Mize · filed 1985-12-10Rules 703 and 705

N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 703, allows an expert to base his opinion testimony on “facts or data . . . perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing [which] . . . need not be admissible in evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 705, gives the opposing party the right to require disclosure of the underlying facts or data of the expert’s opinion prior to his testimony and on cross-examination. We hold, therefore, that the discussion of the Boyer report on cross-examination was proper.

Rule 702 permits a qualified expert to give an opinion based on specialized knowledge that will help the factfinder determine a fact in issue.

Torain v. Fordham Drug Co., Inc. · filed 1986-03-04Rule 702

Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, G.S. 8C-1 (1985), provides that “if scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion.” Dr. Joyner testified as to Mr. Torain’s blood alcohol level at 5:00 p.m.; the effect on Mr. Torain’s blood alcohol level of having had his stomach emptied and having been administered Ringer’s lactate; and his opinion, based on his medical knowledge and his knowledge of Mr. Torain’s course and treatment in the hospital, that Mr. Torain could have been intoxicated at 2:50 p.m.

Rule 703 permits an expert to base an opinion on accounting records and data supplied by management employees.

Liss of Carolina, Inc. v. South Hills Shopping Center, Inc. · filed 1987-04-07Rule 703

This information included records kept for accounting purposes by the expert witness and data supplied to him by plaintiffs management employees. The witness’s reliance on such data is permitted by G.S. 8C-1, Rule 703.

Rules 701 and 702 require opinion testimony to help the jury; an opinion that merely tells the jury what result to reach is inadmissible.

Williams v. Sapp · filed 1986-10-21Rules 701 and 702

This opinion merely tells the jury the result that they should reach and, therefore, is not helpful to their determination of a fact in issue, as required by G.S. 8C-1, Rules 701 and 702.

Rule 702 permits a qualified expert to explain gunshot residue evidence when the opinion helps the jury decide a fact in issue.

State v. Benjamin · filed 1986-11-18Rule 702

Under these circumstances, the witness’ opinion as to how the victim could have gotten this residue on his hands would assist the trier of fact to determine a fact in issue, whether the victim had intentionally or accidentally shot himself or whether he had been shot by the defendant.

Rule 702 permits a qualified expert to give an opinion that appreciably helps the jury, with its probative value weighed against prejudice, confusion, or delay.

State v. Anderson · filed 1987-04-07Rule 702

G.S. 8C-1, Rule 702 of our Rules of Evidence provides that if “specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion.” ... We believe that the probative value of Dr. Scott’s opinion testimony outweighs any potential for prejudice, confusion or undue delay. ... Here, the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to Dr. Scott’s opinion testimony as to the patent offensiveness of these magazines.

Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony only when it assists the jury; an expert’s paternity conclusion should be excluded when the jury can draw that conclusion from the evidence itself.

State v. Jackson · filed 1987-07-28Rule 702

With Dr. McMahan’s testimony concerning the paternity index and the evidence of defendant’s access before it, the jury was in as good a position as Dr. McMahan to determine whether defendant was “probably” the father of the victim’s child. Therefore, Dr. McMahan’s testimony that defendant “probably” was the father of the victim’s child was of no assistance to the trier of fact and should have been excluded on that basis.

Rule 702 requires a foundation showing that an expert’s specialized knowledge gives the expert a better basis than the jury to form the offered opinion.

State v. Trent · filed 1987-09-03Rule 702

The State was required to lay a sufficient foundation to show that the opinion expressed by Dr. Markello was really based upon his special expertise, or stated differently, that he was in a better position than the jury to have an opinion on the subject.

Rule 702 requires a foundation showing that a proposed expert is qualified to give an opinion on the particular subject.

State v. Goodwin · filed 1987-07-07Rule 702

We hold only that the testimony was improperly admitted here because the State failed to lay a sufficient foundation to establish that the witness was qualified to offer it.

Rule 702 does not permit a forensic pathologist to give expert testimony about a knife-wipe pattern on a shirt when the matter is within the jury’s common sense.

State v. Zuniga · filed 1987-07-07Rule 702

While Dr. Butts was properly qualified as a forensic pathologist to testify to the nature of the wounds inflicted on April and to the cause of her death, he was not qualified as an expert on the pattern that a knife blade makes when it is wiped on a shirt. This is a matter of common sense, best left to the jury.

Rule 702 permits an expert opinion that assists the factfinder; factors used to value a professional practice do not determine whether the opinion is admissible.

McLean v. McLean · filed 1987-12-29Rule 702

The requirement for the admissibility of an expert's opinion is that it "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." G.S. 8C-1, Rule 702. The criteria set out in Poore v. Poore, 75 N.C.App. 414, 331 S.E.2d 266, disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 543, 335 S.E.2d 316 (1985), are factors for the court to consider in valuing the professional interest and are not criteria for admissibility of the expert's opinion.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony when the witness’s education, knowledge, and experience can help the jury understand the evidence, even if the witness has not worked in the identical subject area.

Robinson v. Seaboard System RR, Inc. · filed 1987-11-17Rule 702

His education, knowledge, and experience in the field were clearly such as to enable him to assist the jury in understanding the evidence with respect to Southern’s own safety rules and in relating that evidence to the accident in which Mrs. Hutchins was injured. See G.S. 8C-1, Rule 702. Moreover, the testimony given by Mr. Miller was within the scope of his expertise and Southern’s contentions to the contrary are overruled.

Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony when specialized knowledge will help the jury understand the evidence or decide a fact at issue.

Thomas v. Dixson · filed 1988-01-05Rule 702

Testimony of an expert in the form of an opinion is properly admitted in evidence if the expert’s specialized knowledge will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact at issue in the case. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 702. ... Likewise, Mr. Williams’ testimony as to the conformity of the stairway to the North Carolina Building Code was relevant and admissible.

Rule 702 permits qualified experts to give opinion testimony when specialized knowledge will help the jury understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue.

State v. Mancuso · filed 1988-02-03Rule 702

N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 provides, in pertinent part, “If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert . . . may testify thereto in the form of an opinion.” ... The defendant in the present case has made no showing that Ms. Turner’s testimony on involuntary commitment procedures would help the jury understand the evidence, or determine a fact in issue. Thus, the defendant has failed to show an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

Rule 702 permits qualified experts to explain why a child might continue to cooperate with an alleged sexual abuser when that specialized knowledge helps the jury understand the evidence.

State v. Bailey · filed 1988-03-15Rule 702

In our view, the testimony of Ms. Browder and Dr. Smith as to a child’s continued cooperation with a person the child has accused of sexual abuse was specialized knowledge, helpful to the jury and well within the fields of expertise of the two witnesses.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony when the expert can assist the jury in drawing inferences from facts and is better qualified than the jury to do so.

State v. Anderson · filed 1988-04-06Rule 702

The admissibility of expert testimony in North Carolina is now governed by Rule 702 of our Rules of Evidence. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1986). ... Applying the foregoing standards in reviewing the trial court’s exclusion of certain of Dr. Scott’s testimony as tendered by the defendant, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony that helps the jury understand the evidence or decide a fact, but an expert opinion on whether a legal standard was met may be excluded when it would confuse the jury.

State v. Weeks · filed 1988-05-05Rule 702

Testimony by experts is admissible if it will assist the “trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1986). ... Having the experts testify as requested by defendant would tend to confuse, rather than help, the jury in understanding the evidence and determining the facts in issue. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit this testimony.

Rule 703 permits a testifying expert to rely on a nontestifying expert’s opinion and disclose it as a basis for the testifying expert’s opinion.

State v. Jones · filed 1988-06-02Rule 703

We hold that the trial court properly admitted the out-of-court expert’s opinion for the purpose of revealing one basis underlying a testifying expert’s opinion given under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 703.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony that helps the jury understand evidence or decide a disputed fact when the witness has the necessary expertise.

State v. Chisholm · filed 1988-06-21Rule 702

It is well-settled that expert testimony is properly admissible when such testimony can assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence and to determine a fact in issue because the expert is better qualified. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 702. The evidence of record in the case sub judice clearly supports the trial court’s findings that Officer Couch, through and including his length of employment as a vice officer, his training, knowledge, and the number of drug purchases he had participated in as a vice officer, provided him with the requisite expertise to testify as to the recognition of narcotic drugs and the use and packaging of marijuana.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony that helps the jury understand physical findings without commenting on a victim’s truthfulness or a defendant’s guilt.

State v. Aguallo · filed 1988-07-28Rule 702

The statement of the doctor only revealed the consistency of her findings with the presence of vaginal trauma. This expert opinion did not comment on the truthfulness of the victim or the guilt or innocence of defendant. The questions and answers were properly admitted to assist the jury in understanding the results of the physical examination and their relevancy to the case being tried. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1986).

Rule 702 allows exclusion of expert survey testimony that would not assist the jury in deciding whether material is obscene.

State v. Mayes · filed 1988-09-07Rule 702

Anderson is dispositive here. The trial court properly excluded questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 and their results, as well as Dr. Winick’s related testimony.

Rule 702 allows knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to qualify a witness as an expert; when no express finding is requested, admitting the opinion testimony can implicitly establish that qualification.

Cato Equipment Co. Inc. v. Matthews · filed 1988-10-18Rule 702

Under Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may qualify one as an expert. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 702. ... Plaintiff made no request at the trial for a finding as to the qualification of the defendant as an expert. The court itself was asking for the opinion of the defendant, implicitly admitting him as an expert.

Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony when the witness is qualified to help the trier of fact; weaknesses in the expert’s valuation may affect the testimony’s weight rather than its admissibility.

McLean v. McLean · filed 1988-12-08Rule 702

While admittedly unfamiliar with the specific subject area of sale of law practices in the Asheville area, the C.P.A.’s training and experience gave him knowledge sufficient to render him better qualified than the trier of fact to value an interest in a law practice. The trier of fact made the determination that the witness’ testimony would be helpful, and we find no error or abuse of discretion in that determination.

Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony when a witness’s study or experience makes the witness better qualified than the jury on the subject.

State v. Ayers · filed 1988-12-20Rule 702

Moreover, we find no error in the qualification of Ms. Bitticks as an expert. ... “It is enough that through study or experience the expert is better qualified than the jury to render [an] opinion regarding the particular subject.” ... See G.S. 8C-1, Rule 702.

Section 8C-1, Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony when specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue.

Tompkins v. Log Systems, Inc. · filed 1989-11-21

Expert opinion testimony is admissible — and therefore pertinent — “[i]f the [expert’s] scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules of Evidence 702 (1988). ... Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff we cannot say that Mr. Moser’s evidence amounts only to speculation.

Rule 701 does not limit opinion testimony from a witness whom the trial court implicitly finds qualified as an expert.

State v. Greime · filed 1990-02-20Rule 701

Taking these rulings in context, we hold that the trial court implicitly found Lieutenant Cagle to be an expert. The record would support such a finding, and the “opinion of an expert witness is admissible when it is shown that the witness, through study or experience, has acquired such skill and expertise that he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the subject matter to which his testimony applies.” State v. Monk, 291 N.C. 37, 52, 229 S.E.2d 163, 173 (1976).

Rule 702 permits qualified experts to testify when their specialized knowledge will help the jury, and gives trial courts broad discretion in admitting that testimony.

State v. Parks · filed 1989-12-19Rule 702

A trial court is afforded wide latitude in applying Rule 702 and will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. ... Applying these standards to the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not err in qualifying the witnesses as experts in child sexual abuse and admitting their testimony.

Rule 702 permits a qualified psychologist to testify about psychological tests and the responses supporting a PTSD diagnosis.

State v. Strickland · filed 1990-01-04Rule 702

Such testimony is admissible and relevant as an expert’s opinion on the credibility of psychological tests and as the expert’s basis for making her diagnosis.

Rule 702 permits a qualified pathologist to give an opinion about gunshot wounds when that expertise assists the jury.

State v. Torres · filed 1990-07-17Rule 702

Here, Dr. Harris' testimony was properly admitted pursuant to G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 which provides that: If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion. His opinion as the positioning and path of the bullets was based upon his examination of the bullet entrances during an autopsy. Clearly, as the pathologist who performed the autopsy of the victim, Dr. Harris was in the best position to assist the jury in understanding the characteristics of the victim's wounds and determining whether the defendant acted in self-defense when she shot her husband. Thus, the trial court did not err in allowing Dr. Harris to testify that in his opinion one of the shots could have entered the victim while the victim was on the floor.

Rule 705 permits an expert to state an opinion without first disclosing its factual basis unless the opposing party requests that basis.

State v. Brown · filed 1990-12-18

Because defendant failed to request the factual basis for Dr. Leak’s opinion as required under Rule 705, we find that the trial court did not err in permitting the expert testimony concerning the weight of the cocaine.

Rule 702 permits a qualified expert to give an opinion when specialized knowledge will help the jury decide a fact in issue.

State v. Bearthes · filed 1991-06-12Rule 702

Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence permits a witness properly qualified as an expert to testify in the form of an opinion when specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to determine a fact in issue.

Rule 702 allows expert opinion testimony when it will help the jury understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue; testimony is excludable when the jury can assess the issue as well as the expert.

Braswell v. Braswell · filed 1991-12-06Rule 702

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence allow the admission of expert opinion testimony if it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1988). ... When the jury is in as good a position as the expert to determine an issue, the expert’s testimony is properly excludable because it is not helpful to the jury.

Rule 703 permits an expert to base an opinion on facts or data the expert did not personally observe if the basis for the opinion is available in the record or upon demand.

State v. Futrell · filed 1993-12-07Rule 703

An expert need not base his opinion upon personal knowledge “as long as the basis for his or her opinion is available in the record or available upon demand.”

Rule 703 allows an expert to rely on statistical data commonly accepted in the expert’s field when forming an opinion.

State v. Demery · filed 1993-12-21Rule 703

The only part of his testimony that was not based on his personal knowledge was the statistical database upon which he relied and which is admissible under Rule 703.

Rule 702 does not require an expert to personally interview a defendant before giving an opinion about the defendant’s mental condition.

State v. Daniels · filed 1994-08-25Rule 702

We conclude that N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702, which addresses the admission of an expert’s opinion, does not require that an expert personally interview a defendant in order to express an opinion about that defendant’s mental condition.

Rule 703 permits an expert to base an opinion on out-of-court information of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.

State v. Hill · filed 1994-10-31Rule 703

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 703 (1992), an expert may base an opinion on facts or data perceived before the hearing if it is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. ... Thus, the trial court did not err by allowing Special Agent Boodee to testify about the results of Dr. Weir’s study.

Rule 705 permits questions about the facts underlying an expert’s opinion and does not bar other proper cross-examination questions.

State v. Reeves · filed 1994-10-06Rule 705

Although Rule 705 allows a party to elicit evidence of the underlying facts of a witness’ opinion, it does not restrict a party from asking otherwise proper questions.

Rule 702 permits a qualified expert to explain gunshot residue findings when the testimony assists the jury in understanding the evidence.

State v. Watson · filed 1994-11-03Rule 702

The testimony was admissible as it assisted the jury in understanding the reach and import of Creasy’s gunshot residue findings.

Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony when it will help the jury decide a fact in issue; a contradictory and equivocal opinion may be excluded.

State v. Jackson · filed 1995-06-02Rule 702

Rule 702 sets the standard for the admissibility of expert opinion testimony, specifying that a witness qualified as an expert may testify as to scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge if such testimony “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1992). ... In light of the foregoing, we conclude that this expert opinion testimony, at best, was contradictory and equivocal and could not have been helpful to the trier of fact in making the determination of whether defendant specifically intended to kill the victim.

Rule 702 requires a trial court to assess whether an expert’s method is sufficiently valid, applies to the facts, and will assist the jury.

State v. Goode · filed 1995-09-08Rule 702

Thus, under our Rules of Evidence, when a trial court is faced with a proffer of expert testimony, it must determine whether the expert is proposing to testify to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to determine a fact in issue. As recognized by the United States Supreme Court in its most recent opinion addressing the admissibility of expert scientific testimony, this requires a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is sufficiently valid and whether that reasoning or methodology can be properly applied to the facts in issue.

Rule 702 permits medical experts to opine that a child’s injuries were intentionally inflicted when the opinions are within their expertise, help the factfinder, and do not state a legal conclusion.

State v. McAbee · filed 1995-11-07Rule 702

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony since it was within each physician’s area of expertise, was helpful to the factfinder and did not embrace a legal term of art or conclusion of law.

Rule 705 does not automatically admit the facts underlying an expert’s opinion; an adverse party must request their disclosure.

State v. Workman · filed 1996-10-11Rule 705

This Court has previously recognized that “Rule 705 does not... make the bases for an expert’s opinion automatically admissible.” ... It is clear that the trial court’s decision excluding the basis of Dr. Wood’s opinion was correct. First, neither the State nor counsel for defendant Shoffner requested that Dr. Wood disclose the basis of his opinion.

Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony when specialized knowledge will help the jury understand the evidence or decide a fact at issue; objections to credibility and weight do not make relevant testimony inadmissible.

Newton v. New Hanover County Board of Education · filed 1996-02-09Rule 702

Testimony of an expert in the form of an opinion is properly admitted into evidence if the expert’s specialized knowledge will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact at issue in the case. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1988). ... Because defendant’s contentions go to the credibility and weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that this testimony was relevant.

Rule 702 permits a fire investigator to give an opinion that a fire was intentionally set when the opinion draws on specialized knowledge and helps the jury.

State v. Hales · filed 1996-09-06Rule 702

The testimony of Mr. West was in regard to matters not within the knowledge of the average person, and it was helpful to the jury in reaching a decision. The witness stated his opinion as to the cause of the fire and then testified as to the matters upon which he based his opinion. In this we find no error.

Rule 702 permits a court to exclude expert testimony that would not assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.

State v. Harden · filed 1996-10-11Rule 702

Applying the foregoing principles in reviewing the trial court’s exclusion of Ronald Guerrette’s testimony, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Rule 705 permits an expert to be cross-examined about records used to form the expert’s opinion.

State v. Lyons · filed 1996-04-04Rule 705

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 705, it was proper for the prosecutor, during cross-examination, to question Dr. Hoover regarding those records, as they were used to formulate his opinion that defendant was suffering from bipolar disorder.

Rule 705 permits cross-examination of an expert about conclusions in work the expert relied on, even when the expert disagrees with those conclusions.

State v. White · filed 1996-06-13Rule 705

In the case at bar, because Dr. Billinsky relied on the work of Dr. Varley, Rule 705 permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine Dr. Billinsky about Dr. Varley’s conclusions, including those with which Dr. Billinsky disagreed.

Rule 611(b) permits broad cross-examination of expert witnesses, including questions about their credentials.

State v. Page · filed 1997-07-24Rule 611(b)

North Carolina Rules of Evidence permit broad cross-examination of expert witnesses. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 611(b) (1992). ... As with any witness, the State was entitled to call into question Pollock’s credentials; thus, the court’s denial of the motion in limine was proper.

Rule 702(a) permits qualified expert opinion testimony that helps the jury understand the evidence.

State v. Locklear · filed 1998-10-09Rule 702(a)

By giving his opinion based on his experience as a pathologist and his personal observation of the gunshot wounds, Dr. Thompson was undoubtedly in a position to assist the jury in determining the distance from which the fatal shots were fired. Dr. Thompson’s testimony illustrating the effect such a shot would have had on the human body was likewise appropriate to assist the jury in understanding the evidence. The trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s objection to this testimony.

Rule 702 allows a qualified expert to give a scientific opinion that helps the jury understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue.

State v. Jones · filed 1999-06-15Rule 702

Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence will allow an expert witness to testify to a scientific opinion if it will "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue...." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (Cum.Supp.1997). In this case, defendant objects to testimony by Dr. Mason that, in his opinion, defendant was appreciably impaired when his blood alcohol level reached .046. This testimony, however, was appropriately admitted because Dr. Mason was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic toxicology and had examined a sample of defendant's blood and therefore could give his opinion as to the effects of the various impairing substances in defendant's body.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony based on mitochondrial DNA testing when the method is sufficiently reliable and the witness is qualified.

State v. Underwood · filed 1999-08-17Rule 702

We hold that mtDNA testing is sufficiently reliable to warrant its admissibility into evidence.

Section 8C-1, Rule 704 permits opinions on ultimate issues but does not permit an expert to testify that a legal standard has been met.

Norris v. Zambito · filed 1999-10-19

Whether the officers^ conduct in pursuing Zambito was “grossly negligent” or “showed reckless disregard for the safety of others” are legal conclusions to be drawn from the evidence; Mr. Gormley’s opinion testimony drawing such conclusions was, therefore, properly excluded.

Rule 702(a) permits expert testimony when specialized knowledge will assist the jury; testimony about a matter of common knowledge may be excluded.

Warren v. General Motors Corp. · filed 2001-02-20Rule 702(a)

An expert witness is qualified to testify if “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (1999); State v. Jones, 337 N.C. 198, 209, 446 S.E.2d 32, 39 (1994). The trial court correctly concluded the jury was capable of rendering a decision on the value of a person’s services to himself because such is a matter of common knowledge.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified expert to give an opinion based on specialized knowledge without requiring that the field be scientifically proven.

Taylor v. Abernethy · filed 2002-03-19Rule 702(a)

The rules clearly provide that an expert who testifies to any of the matters permitted under Rule 702, including testimony based on specialized knowledge, is entitled to give an opinion based upon that knowledge.

Rule 702(a) does not permit an expert who did not observe an accident to give an opinion on vehicle speed based solely on physical evidence at the scene.

Loy v. Martin · filed 2003-03-18Rule 702(a)

Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence allows an expert witness to testify in the form of an opinion if that expert’s “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2001). ... Without having personally observed the accident, McCandless’ opinion testimony was clearly inadmissible pursuant to North Carolina case law.

Rule 702 places the initial determination of an expert’s reliability with the trial judge.

Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. · filed 2003-06-17Rule 702

Although we understand some of the concerns expressed by Dr. Howerton, we, nevertheless, believe that our case law has wisely chosen to place the burden with a lay judge, rather than a lay jury, of initially determining the reliability of expert testimony.

Rule 702 permits a qualified fire expert to give an opinion on a fire’s origin and cause when the testimony helps the jury determine a fact in issue.

State v. Lassiter · filed 2003-10-07Rule 702

Agent Campbell was a qualified expert who testified as to the source and cause of the fire of 16 October 1999 in defendant’s mobile home. His expert opinion that the source of this fire was a hydrocarbon fuel, that it was impossible for ignited vegetable oil to have been the source of the fire, and that the fuel was poured in a large quantity on the living room floor of the mobile home was properly admitted.

Rule 702 permits a medical expert to testify that an examination is consistent with a child’s account of sexual abuse when the expert does not vouch for the child’s credibility.

In Re Butts · filed 2003-05-20Rule 702

However, otherwise admissible expert testimony is not rendered inadmissible merely because it enhances a witness’s credibility. ... In the present case, Dr. Cooke did not testify that the allegations in the juvenile petition were accurate, but only that her examination of C.C. was “consistent” with her interview of him. We conclude that the admission of this testimony was neither error nor plain error.

Rule 704 allows experts to testify definitively about causation.

Holley v. Acts, Inc. · filed 2003-06-13Rule 704

With the adoption of Rule 704 in 1983, experts were allowed to testify more definitively as to causation. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 704.