N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 804(b)(5) permits otherwise unlisted hearsay from an unavailable declarant when notice gives the opposing party a fair opportunity to meet the statement and the statement has sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

State v. Nichols · filed 1988-03-09Rule 804(b)(5)

We conclude defendant was provided with a fair opportunity to meet Nathaniel Ray’s statement; therefore, the notice given by the prosecutor of his intention to admit Ray’s statement was sufficient under Rule 804(b)(5). ... Based on our assessment of these factors in the present case we hold that Ray’s statement contained sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness to be admitted under Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(b)(3) permits a neutral collateral statement when it is integral to a larger statement against the declarant’s penal interest.

State v. Wilson · filed 1988-05-05Rule 804(b)(3)

Rather, we adopt the view of several federal courts that such collateral statements are admissible even though they are themselves neutral as to the declarant's interest if they are integral to a larger statement which is against the declarant's interest.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires specific findings and conclusions before a trial court admits hearsay under its exception for an unavailable witness.

State v. Benfield · filed 1988-09-06Rule 804(b)(5)

As a consequence, even though the record provides an evidentiary basis from which at least some of the findings could have been made, it was error for the trial court to fail to make the specific findings and conclusions.

Rule 804(b)(3) requires corroborating circumstances clearly indicating that a statement against the declarant’s penal interest is trustworthy before it can be admitted in a criminal case.

State v. Agubata · filed 1989-02-07Rule 804(b)(3)

Therefore, the letters were not admissible under Rule 804(b)(3), and the trial court committed no error in excluding them on that basis.

A child’s inability to testify because of fear can establish unavailability under Rule 804(a)(4) without medical testimony when the judge observes the child’s inability to respond.

State v. Chandler · filed 1989-03-02Rule 804(a)(4)

Under the circumstances, the judge’s declaration that the child “is simply going to be unable to testify,” amounts to an implicit declaration of unavailability within the meaning of Rule 804(a)(4). Medical testimony was not required for this conclusion since the witness was not unavailable as the result of an existing medical condition and an explanation or verification of such a condition was unnecessary.

Rule 804(b)(3) permits hearsay statements against a declarant’s penal interest when the required corroborating circumstances show they are trustworthy.

State v. Levan · filed 1990-02-07Rule 804(b)(3)

Upon examining the record, we find that the hearsay statements in question constituted statements against the penal interest of the declarants, Charles Feimster, Terry Kurley, and defendant. As such, these statements are admissible hearsay under Rule 804(b)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Rule 804(b)(3) permits an unavailable declarant’s admission of drug ownership when corroborating circumstances clearly indicate its trustworthiness, but a statement that the drugs were not someone else’s does not qualify as against penal interest.

State v. Eggert · filed 1993-06-15Rule 804(b)(3)

Clearly, the alleged statement made by Mr. Burton to Mr. Malezewski was against Mr. Burton’s penal interest. Moreover, we find sufficient corroborating circumstances to clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement: (1) Mr. Burton was seated next to the defendant in the van; (2) the drugs were found where the defendant was seated, necessarily in close proximity to Mr. Burton; and (3) Mr. Burton admitted owning a bag found by officers which contained drug paraphernalia and “one suspected hit of LSD.” ... Here, the statements allegedly made by Mr. Burton to the defendant were not against Mr. Burton’s penal interest.

Rule 804(b)(3) requires corroborating circumstances clearly indicating trustworthiness before a statement exposing its maker to criminal liability may be admitted in a criminal case.

State v. Brown · filed 1994-01-28Rule 804(b)(3)

The trial court’s determination that the statements made by Williams were not trustworthy is well supported by the record. Accordingly, defendant was properly precluded from introducing the statements under the Rule' 804 statement against interest exception to the prohibition against hearsay. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(3).

Rule 804(b)(5) permits hearsay from an unavailable declarant when the statement has sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

State v. Peterson · filed 1994-07-29Rule 804(b)(5)

This evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusion of law that the hearsay testimony of Hopper possessed sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to be constitutionally admissible under Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(b)(5) requires equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness before hearsay from an unavailable declarant may be admitted, supported by particularized findings.

State v. Swindler · filed 1994-12-30Rule 804(b)(5)

In this case, the trial court failed to make any particularized findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding whether the letter possessed “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” In ruling that the letter had characteristics of trustworthiness so that it was admissible, the court simply stated that: “I think that there are some indications that this is a truthful statement.” This conclusion alone is an inadequate determination that a statement contains the “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” necessary to allow its admission under the residual hearsay rule.

Rule 804(b)(5) permits hearsay from an unavailable witness when supported findings establish equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and the rule’s other conditions are met.

State v. Brown · filed 1994-12-30Rule 804(b)(5)

This evidence supports the court’s findings, and those findings support its conclusions. We find no error in the admission of the hearsay testimony under Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(a)(4) treats a witness as unavailable when a mental illness or infirmity prevents the witness from testifying.

State v. Carter · filed 1994-12-30Rule 804(a)(4)

Evidence Rule 804(a)(4) states that a witness is unavailable if she is unable to testify due to “an existing physical or mental illness or infirmity.” ... The record, therefore, supports the trial court’s determination that Kesha Davis was unavailable as a witness, and we find no error in this ruling.

Rule 804(b)(1) permits an unavailable witness’s former testimony when the opposing party had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it, even if counsel’s trial strategy later changed.

State v. Hunt · filed 1995-03-02Rule 804(b)(1)

Although the trial strategy by defense counsel may have been different at the second trial, there has been no reasonable showing that the motive would have been different. The motive was to seek the facts favorable to defendant regarding defendant’s whereabouts at the time of the crime, and defense counsel had ample opportunity to develop this testimony. On the facts presented by the record, we find that the State has met the requirements of the exception in Rule 804(b)(1). Mitchell’s first trial testimony was properly admitted into evidence in defendant’s second trial.

Rule 804(b)(1) permits an unavailable witness’s deposition only if the opposing party had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony.

Pleasant Valley Promenade v. Lechmere, Inc. · filed 1995-11-07Rule 804(b)(1)

Rule 804(b)(1) does not allow an unavailable witness’ deposition to be introduced at trial, however, unless the party against whom such testimony is offered had the “opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(1) (1992). At the time Pleasant Valley deposed Rubin and DeSimone, Pleasant Valley was not seeking damages from AEW. Thus, AEW had no motive to develop testimony to rebut a non-existent damages claim. At trial, however, Pleasant Valley amended its complaint to assert damages against AEW. Accordingly, we hold the trial court properly excluded the deposition testimony under Rule 804(b)(1).

Rule 804(b)(4) permits testimony about the existence of a marriage or other personal relationship, but not events, activities, or emotional states within it.

State v. Hester · filed 1996-05-10Rule 804(b)(4)

That rule merely allows testimony about the existence of a marriage or other personal relationship. It has no bearing on events, activities, or emotional states occurring within those relationships.

Rule 804(b)(2) admits an unavailable declarant’s dying declaration only if the declarant believed death was imminent and the statement concerned the cause or circumstances of that death.

State v. Sharpe · filed 1996-07-31Rule 804(b)(2)

Following his confession, Smith stated that he would kill himself before he would go to jail for killing a white man, but nothing in the circumstances surrounding the making of these statements suggests that he was in immediate danger of being arrested. Thus, it was not established that Smith believed his death was imminent when he made these statements.

Rule 804(b)(3) permits a statement tending to expose its declarant to criminal liability when clear corroborating circumstances support it.

State v. Barnes · filed 1997-02-10Rule 804(b)(3)

Blakney’s conversation with Valerie Mason tended to subject him to criminal liability, and he no doubt knew the consequences of acknowledging his involvement in an attack on a law enforcement officer. His statements therefore fit within the hearsay exception in Rule 804(b)(3).

Rule 804(b)(3) requires a statement to have been against the unavailable declarant’s interest when made and, in a criminal case, requires corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the trustworthiness of a statement exposing the declarant to criminal liability.

State v. Pickens · filed 1997-07-24(b)(3)

The letter at issue does not meet either of the two requirements for admission set forth by the exception. First, it is not a statement against penal interest because Arrington had already entered a guilty plea and was serving a sentence for the murder when the letter was written. Second, there are no corroborating circumstances to indicate that the letter was trustworthy, and there are circumstances to indicate otherwise.

Rule 804(b)(5) permits admission of an unavailable declarant’s hearsay statement when it has circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

State v. Tyler · filed 1997-06-06Rule 804(b)(5)

We conclude that the trial court did not err in concluding that the victim’s statements possessed circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. Accordingly, we find no error in the admission of the victim’s hearsay statements under Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(b)(5) permits an unavailable witness’s hearsay statement when the statement has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness; corroborating evidence cannot supply those guarantees.

State v. Hurst · filed 1997-08-05Rule 804(b)(5)

The trial court should not rely on corroborating evidence to support a hearsay statement’s particularized guarantee of trustworthiness.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires a residual hearsay statement to be inherently trustworthy; corroborating evidence cannot establish the required trustworthiness.

State v. Downey · filed 1997-08-05Rule 804(b)(5)

If the court is to allow admission of hearsay evidence under Rule 804(b)(5), the statement “must possess indicia of reliability by virtue of its inherent trustworthiness, not by reference to other evidence at trial.” ... We conclude that the trial court committed prejudicial error here in basing its determination of the statement’s trustworthiness on the presence of corroborating evidence.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness for residual hearsay; corroborating evidence cannot establish those guarantees.

State v. Hayes · filed 1998-07-21Rule 804(b)(5)

We are aware that the trial court in each instance (Ms. Losee and Mrs. Martin) makes findings indicating that it considered corroborative evidence to support its ruling under 804(b)(5). This was error. Because, however, the determination of trustworthiness is fully supported by the other findings in this record (not based on corroborative evidence), the order must be affirmed as the error is considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rule 804(b)(3) requires a statement against penal interest to be corroborated by circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness.

State v. Jordan · filed 1998-07-21(b)(3)

This rule requires a two-prong test. First, the trial court must be satisfied that the statement is against the declarant’s penal interest. Second, corroborating circumstances must clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Rule 804(b)(5) permits hearsay from an unavailable declarant when the circumstances of the statement provide sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.

State v. Wagoner · filed 1998-11-03Rule 804(b)(5)

We agree with the trial court that the circumstances of each challenged hearsay statement show sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness for admission under Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(b)(3) permits an unavailable accomplice’s statement against penal interest when corroborating circumstances establish its trustworthiness; collateral remarks implicating the defendant need not be redacted.

State v. Kimble · filed 2000-10-03Rule 804(b)(3)

Accordingly, the statements offered by Pardee satisfy Rule 804(b)(3) for the same reasons as the statements offered by Nicholes, and the collateral remarks that inculpate defendant need not be redacted from the statements in order for the statements to be admissible.

Rule 804(b)(5) permits testimony from an unavailable witness when it meets the residual hearsay exception’s requirements for trustworthiness, materiality, necessity, and the interests of justice.

State v. McNeill · filed 2000-11-07Rule 804(b)(5)

Thus, we find no error in the trial court’s admitting Ray’s prior trial testimony because it, in fact, served the interests of justice.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires findings supporting a hearsay statement’s trustworthiness before it may be admitted under the residual exception for an unavailable declarant.

Fox-Kirk v. Hannon · filed 2001-02-20Rule 804(b)(5)

There are no findings in either Judge Smith’s or Judge Balog’s rulings regarding the trustworthiness of the letter to permit this Court to determine whether it was properly admitted pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5), and we must therefore hold that the trial court erred in relying on the earlier order in admitting the letter.

Under Rule 804(b)(5), incomplete findings when excluding hearsay do not require a new hearing if the record shows the evidence would have been excluded as untrustworthy.

State v. Hardison · filed 2001-04-17Rule 804(b)(5)

From the court’s inquiry, we can ascertain that it denied the motion to admit the evidence because it found the evidence lacked the requisite guarantees of trustworthiness. Thus, while the court erred in failing to make the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Triplett, the error does not require a new hearing because it is clear from the record that the court would have excluded the evidence as untrustworthy.

Rule 804(a)(2) requires a court to order a refusing witness to testify before declaring the witness unavailable.

State v. Linton · filed 2001-08-21(a)(2)

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in declaring K unavailable without first giving the required order to testify.

Rule 804(b)(1) permits former testimony from an unavailable witness when the opposing party had an opportunity and similar motive to examine the witness.

State v. Ramirez · filed 2003-03-04Rule 804(b)(1)

The testimony was taken at a preliminary stage of this case, and defendant had the same motive at that time as he would have had at trial, to expand upon and possibly discredit Ms. Ruffin’s testimony. Defendant chose to ask no questions. Therefore, we hold, pursuant to Rule 804(b)(1), the trial court did not err in admitting the former testimony of Ms. Ruffin.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires at least some evidence that the declarant is unavailable before a hearsay statement may be considered at summary judgment.

Strickland v. Doe · filed 2003-03-04Rule 804(b)(5)

Therefore, we hold that plaintiffs must make at least a minimum showing of a declarant’s unavailability at summary judgment before a statement can be considered by the trial court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(b)(5) permits hearsay from an unavailable declarant when the required findings support admission under the residual exception.

State v. Carter · filed 2003-03-18Rule 804(b)(5)

In this case, the trial court’s findings on admissibility are supported by ample competent evidence, and these findings, which conform to the inquiries required of the trial court on this issue, sufficiently support the trial court’s admission of Keisha’s statements under Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(b)(5) permits admission of an unavailable witness’s hearsay statement when its notice, trustworthiness, materiality, probative value, and interests of justice requirements are met.

State v. Finney · filed 2003-04-15Rule 804(b)(5)

The State sought to admit a statement under Rule 804(b)(5). ... We therefore hold that the trial court made the appropriate findings and did not err in allowing Finney’s statement into evidence.

Rule 803(24) requires notice sufficiently in advance to give the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond to the proposed hearsay evidence.

State v. Carrigan · filed 2003-11-18Rule 803(24)

Therefore, the State did not have a fair opportunity to respond to the hearsay statements, and the trial court correctly found that the defendant did not give proper notice of its intention to offer hearsay testimony.

Rule 804(a) requires the proponent of a hearsay statement to establish a listed ground of witness unavailability before the statement may be admitted under Rule 804(b).

State v. Nobles · filed 2003-08-22Rule 804(a)

Before a trial court may admit hearsay testimony under Rule 804(b), it must find that at least one of the conditions listed in Rule 804(a) has been satisfied.

Rule 804(a)(5) requires evidence of a witness’s unavailability before the witness’s former testimony may be admitted; an unverified motion and counsel’s statements do not establish unavailability.

Brewer v. Cabarrus Plastics, Inc. · filed 2003-10-21Rule 804(a)(5)

After reviewing the record, we agree with the trial court that plaintiff failed to offer evidence establishing the unavailability of the witness. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the admission of former trial testimony of a witness.

Rule 804(a)(2) requires sufficient inquiry into whether a witness persists in refusing to testify before the witness may be declared unavailable.

State v. Finney · filed 2004-02-06(a)(2)

Here, where the trial court failed to provide sufficient encouragement to Mrs. Finney and failed to adequately explain to her that her testimony was essential to the constitutionality of the proceedings, we cannot conclude that the trial court properly found that Mrs. Finney was unavailable to testify. Where, as here, a defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation is at stake, we believe that the unavailability requirement in Rule 804 contemplates more than a brief or minimal examination by the trial court.

Rule 804(a)(5) requires the proponent of an absent witness’s statement to show that it could not procure the witness’s attendance by process or other reasonable means; the opposing party’s inability to find the witness does not relieve that burden.

State v. Clark · filed 2004-07-06Rule 804(a)(5)

Defense counsel's statement during his objection to the State's motion that he could not locate Moore does not relieve the State of its burden to produce evidence showing it has been "unable to procure [Moore's] attendance ... by process or other reasonable means." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 804(a)(5); see also Nobles, 357 N.C. at 440, 584 S.E.2d at 771. ... We hold the trial court did not err in declaring Moore to be unavailable to testify during defendant's trial at bar.

Rule 804(b)(1) excludes former testimony when the opposing party lacked a similar motive to develop it in the earlier proceeding.

Gibbs v. Mayo · filed 2004-02-17(b)(1)

Credle’s statements, however, do not fall within the exceptions under Rule 804(b)(1). The issues from the previous case from which plaintiffs wanted to introduce testimony were far different from the issues here.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires the court to find the declarant unavailable before considering the other requirements for admitting hearsay.

State v. Burke · filed 2005-01-04Rule 804(b)(5)

To admit hearsay testimony pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5), "the trial [court] first must find that the declarant is unavailable."

Rule 804(b)(5) requires a residual hearsay statement to have its own guarantees of trustworthiness; corroborating evidence cannot establish them.

State v. Champion · filed 2005-07-19Rule 804(b)(5)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(5) (2003) allows the introduction of a hearsay statement where, even though the statement is not covered by a specific exception, the statement’s declarant is unavailable and the statement possesses “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” equivalent to other hearsay exceptions. ... In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred by considering the corroborative nature of Jennifer’s statements.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires advance written notice before a statement may be admitted under its hearsay exception.

State v. Lawson · filed 2005-09-20Rule 804(b)(5)

However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it gives written notice stating his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant, to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of offering the statement to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statement. The record before the court tends to show that the State did not provide written notice in advance to defendant of its intent to offer Stanley's statement as to defendant's identity through Taborn's testimony. The State did not provide sufficient written notice in advance stating its intent to offer Stanley's statement into evidence, therefore, the statement cannot be admitted under this hearsay exception.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires findings on a declarant’s unavailability and a statement’s reliability before hearsay may be admitted under its residual exception.

State v. Scanlon · filed 2006-03-07Rule 804(b)(5)

Because the trial court failed to make any findings as to Ms. Senter’s availability to testify and the reliability of her statements, we conclude the trial court erred in allowing Ms. Breeden to testify to those statements.

Rule 804(b)(5) permits an unavailable declarant's statement under the residual hearsay exception when the rule's trustworthiness, materiality, probative value, interests of justice, and notice requirements are met.

State v. Brigman · filed 2006-05-16Rule 804(b)(5)

Thus, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these statements under the residual hearsay exception.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires a hearsay statement to be more probative on the point offered than other evidence the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.

State v. Ryals · filed 2006-10-17Rule 804(b)(5)

The trial court also found that the statement was inadmissible under the residual hearsay exception because it was not more probative than any other evidence that Defendant could secure through reasonable efforts on the point of Defendant’s alibi. Specifically, the trial court noted that Carter’s sister and another available witness had also attended the party and could serve as alibi witnesses for Defendant, instead of Steve Hale’s hearsay testimony. Because this finding is supported by competent evidence, we affirm. Thus, the trial court properly excluded the hearsay testimony under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(5).

Prior testimony must qualify for a hearsay exception before a court may consider it; taking judicial notice does not make inadmissible testimony admissible.

In re J.M. · filed 2008-05-06Rule 804

Clearly prior testimony which was not admitted pursuant to any hearsay exception was not admissible, and should not have been considered. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 804 (2007). The trial court could not thwart the protections of the Rules of Evidence by taking judicial notice of this testimony.

Rule 804(b)(2) permits a dying declaration about the cause or circumstances of death when the declarant believed death was imminent.

State v. Bodden · filed 2008-05-20Rule 804(b)(2)

The victim had been shot five times and was bleeding. He was taken to the hospital, received medical treatment in the emergency room, and later died the same day. The circumstances surrounding the victim’s statements support the requirements for admission of a dying declaration.

Under Rule 804(b)(5), a declarant’s assertion of Fifth Amendment rights does not, by itself, make a prior statement untrustworthy.

State v. Sargeant · filed 2010-08-03Rule 804(b)(5)

The bare fact that unavailability is due to the Fifth Amendment cannot, however, without more, justify a finding of a lack of trustworthiness since statements falling within other exceptions under Rule 804, such as a statement against interest, would be admissible even though the basis for unavailability was an assertion of Fifth Amendment rights.

Rule 804(b)(3) requires corroborating circumstances showing that a statement against penal interest is trustworthy before it can be admitted in a criminal case.

State v. Choudhry · filed 2010-08-17Rule 804(b)(3)

Based upon the fact that there was no evidence presented to corroborate Malik's account of events and that Malik had a motive to give a false statement, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Malik's hearsay statement to police was not admissible under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(3).

Rule 804(b)(5) permits an unavailable declarant’s hearsay statement when it has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness; the court considers the declarant’s knowledge, motive to speak truthfully, recantation, and practical availability for cross-examination.

State v. Sargeant · filed 2011-03-11Rule 804(b)(5)

As to the other two considerations, Dalrymple’s motivation to speak the truth and his availability for meaningful cross-examination, the court’s conclusions that these considerations had not been satisfied were made on the basis of inaccurate and incomplete findings of fact used to reach unsupported conclusions of law. Accordingly, the trial court erred in excluding Dalrymple’s hearsay statement.

Rule 804(b)(1) permits an unavailable witness’s former testimony when the defendant had a similar motive to cross-examine the witness in the earlier proceeding.

State v. Rollins · filed 2013-03-19Rule 804(b)(1)

Ultimately, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that, under the specific circumstances of this case, defendant possessed a similar motive to cross-examine Durham during his Alford plea hearing as he would have had at trial. Thus, the trial court properly determined that Durham’s testimony was admissible under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(1).

Rule 804(b)(5) requires a trial court asked to admit evidence under the residual hearsay exception to consider the exception and conduct the six-part inquiry before admitting or denying the evidence.

Brissett v. First Mount Vernon Industrial Loan Ass'n · filed 2014-04-01Rule 804(b)(5)

We hold this failure to address the admission of the evidence under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(5) was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.

Rule 804(a)(5) requires the proponent of an absent witness’s former testimony to show that the witness’s attendance could not be secured by process or other reasonable means.

State v. Clonts · filed 2017-06-20Rule 804(a)(5)

We hold that even had the trial court made findings and conclusions supporting that the State “has been unable to procure [her] attendance . . . by process or other reasonable means[,]” as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 804(a)(5), the record evidence would not support this conclusion.

Rule 804(a)(5) permits a finding that a witness is unavailable when the State uses process or other reasonable means to obtain the witness’s attendance.

State v. Allen · filed 2019-05-21Rule 804(a)(5)

In contrast, here, the trial court found that the State delivered a subpoena for Montes to her lawyer, and Montes agreed to appear in court and testify against defendant. Unlike the findings in Clonts, these findings support a conclusion both that the State utilized reasonable means and made a good faith effort to obtain the witness’ presence at trial.

Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5) require supported findings before residual hearsay may be admitted, and Rule 804(b)(5) also requires a supported finding that the declarant is unavailable.

In re. B.W., T.W. · filed 2020-11-17Rules 803(24), 804(b)(5)

The CAC video was improperly admitted under both residual hearsay exceptions.

Rule 804 treats a deceased witness as unavailable and permits declarations against pecuniary interest under a hearsay exception.

Gribble v. Bostian · filed 2021-08-17Rule 804

Further, to the extent that Mr. Smith’s statements offered at trial constituted hearsay, these statements fall within an exception that allows into evidence statements made by an unavailable witness. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 804 (2018) (a witness is “unavailable” because he is “unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death[.]”). Further, when a declarant is unavailable, “North Carolina cases have recognized declarations against pecuniary or proprietary interest as an exception to the hearsay rule.” See Brandis on North Carolina Evidence § 147 (1982). Any statement by Mr. Smith which would tend to show that he acquiesced to the dirt path being the easement—a path that runs through the middle of the tract—would have been against his pecuniary interests.

Rule 804(b)(1) permits an unavailable witness’s former testimony when the opposing party had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it at the earlier hearing.

State v. Joyner · filed 2022-08-02Rule 804(b)(1)

Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not violate Rule 804(b)(1) by admitting Meeks’s prior testimony at trial.

Rule 804(b)(3) requires corroborating circumstances clearly indicating that a statement against penal interest is trustworthy before it may be admitted in a criminal case.

State v. Quiterio-Morrison · filed 2025-09-03Rule 804(b)(3)

These Findings support the trial court’s Conclusion there were insufficient independent, non-hearsay indications of trustworthiness to support admitting the statement at trial. Thus, in light of all the evidence, Defendant has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in concluding the statement was not admissible under Rule 804(b)(3).

Rules 803(6) and (8) permit admission of a police accident report when it is properly authenticated and sufficiently trustworthy.

Keith v. Polier · filed 1993-02-16Rule 803(6), (8)

This testimony by Officer Simmons provided proper authentication and tends to show that the report was sufficiently trustworthy and was therefore admissible under Rules 803(6) and (8) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Section 8C-1, Rule 803 permits a death certificate to include an opinion on the cause of death when the opinion results from an investigation authorized by law.

Segrest v. Gillette · filed 1992-03-05Rule 803(8), (9)

It appears from the language of Rule 803(9) and the Comment on Rule 803(8), that the rule that prohibits the introduction of death certificates containing opinions has been changed so that opinions contained on death certificates are no longer barred by the hearsay rule. In order to be admissible, however, pursuant to Rule 803(8) the opinion expressed must result "from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law." ... In this case the county medical examiner was granted authority by law to investigate the cause of death of Amy Segrest and it was error to exclude the death certificate.

Rule 803(4) permits a child's statements and demonstrations identifying a sexual abuser to be admitted as substantive evidence when they are reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Bullock · filed 1987-10-07Rule 803(4)

Therefore, the testimony as to the statements and demonstrations by the children indicating that they had been sexually abused and that the perpetrator was their father, the defendant, were admissible under Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(4) permits a child’s statements to a social worker during a disclosure interview when the statements are made for medical diagnosis.

State v. Jones · filed 1988-04-19Rule 803(4)

Based upon the evidence discussed above, this Court finds the victim’s statements to Ms. Berson were made for the purpose of medical diagnosis. We conclude the trial court properly admitted Ms. Berson’s testimony under the Rule 803(4) exception to hearsay.

Rule 803(8) excludes matters observed by police officers in criminal cases from the public records and reports hearsay exception.

State v. Maness · filed 1988-02-03Rule 803(8)

The statement cannot be admitted under the “Public Records and Reports” exception of N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(8), since that rule specifically excludes “in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law-enforcement personnel.”

Rule 803(6) permits an authenticated accident report prepared in the regular course of patrol work from information supplied by people with firsthand knowledge, unless circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Wentz v. Unifi, Inc. · filed 1988-03-01Rule 803(6)

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(6) (1986) of the N.C. Rules of Evidence, “Records of Regularly Conducted Activity,” highway accident reports may be admissible, as a business records exception to the hearsay rule. ... In the present case, the reports were fully authenticated and a proper foundation laid by Trooper Yates’ testimony.

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment; evidence that a trial was approaching does not alone show an examination was conducted only for trial.

Williams v. Williams · filed 1988-10-04Rule 803(4)

Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment, because of their inherent reliability, are admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. ... Although their conversation indicates some interest with the trial, the Record is insufficient to support plaintiffs contention that Dr. Riddle’s examinations were conducted only for the purpose of trial. This assignment is overruled.

Rule 803(6)’s business records exception covers contemporaneous records made in the usual course of business by authorized personnel and identified by a witness familiar with the records and how they were made.

Steelcase, Inc. v. Lilly Co., Inc. · filed 1989-05-16Rule 803(6)

As such, we find that the records at issue in the present case are the kind of records intended to be covered by the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The trial court’s ruling that this evidence was inadmissible was in error.

Rule 803(6) requires a witness familiar with how a business record was made to lay a foundation for its substantive admission.

State v. Price · filed 1990-02-07Rule 803(6)

As such, it is admissible when “a proper foundation ... is laid by testimony of a witness who is familiar with the . . . records and the methods under which they were made so as to satisfy the court that the methods, the sources of information, and the time of preparation render such evidence trustworthy.” ... No such witness testified in this case, and absent the laying of a foundation for its admission, the Smiths’ telephone bill was not properly admitted for substantive purposes.

Rule 803(6) permits a qualified witness familiar with a business’s system for obtaining and filing records to introduce them, even without personal knowledge of the method used to produce the data.

Barber v. Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co. · filed 1990-04-17Rule 803(6)

We think witness Robinson’s knowledge of and relationship to the tests were sufficient to qualify him as a “qualified other witness” under Rule 803(6) who could introduce the data.

Rule 803(6) permits a timecard to be admitted as a business record when a proper foundation establishes its trustworthiness.

State v. Mebane · filed 1992-07-07Rule 803(6)

The timecard was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(6) (1988) which exempts “business records.”

Rule 803(6) permits admission of a business record made at the time of an event and routinely kept by the business when a qualified witness establishes those facts.

State v. Ligon · filed 1992-09-04Rule 803(6)

The use of the sales ticket in this case fits neatly within the parameters of Rule of Evidence 803(6): the sales ticket was filled out by Bassett at the time the driver’s license was presented to him; it was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; it was the regular practice of the business to keep such a record; and Bassett, the person who sold the ammunition and made out the sales ticket, was qualified to give the testimony. We hold, on the facts of this case, that the sales ticket was properly admitted into evidence under Rule of Evidence 803(6).

Section 8C-1, Rule 803(3), does not require a statement of intent to be closely related in time to the intended future act.

State v. Taylor · filed 1992-09-04Rule 803(3)

Rule 803(3) does not contain a requirement that the declarant’s statement must be closely related in time to the future act intended.

Rule 803(4) permits a child’s statements to a parent under the medical treatment exception when the statements lead to medical diagnosis or treatment, even if the parent first contacts police.

State v. Rogers · filed 1993-04-06Rule 803(4)

Despite the fact that A.E.’s mother, upon hearing her daughter’s statement, first found a police officer and requested assistance, A.E.’s statements to her mother resulted in A.E. being taken to the hospital the same day and receiving a medical diagnosis. Therefore, the statements were properly admitted under Rule 803(4).

Business records may be authenticated by a qualified witness familiar with how they were made and kept; the person who created them need not testify.

State v. Rupe · filed 1993-04-20Rule 803(6)

As one “familiar with the business entries and the system under which they were made,” Bailes was a “qualified witness” to show that “it was the regular practice” of salespersons at Carolina Glen to create the documents in question during a sales transaction. Bailes testimony, coupled with the dates and signatures on the documents themselves are sufficient to establish that all of the documents were made and kept in the regular course of business at or near the time of each reservation or sale of a condominium unit.

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment to be admitted even when they are not made to medical personnel.

State v. Richardson · filed 1993-09-21Rule 803(4)

Under Rule 803(4), the statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment need not be made to medical personnel in order to be admissible.

Rule 803(8) permits admission of public office records describing the office’s activities, and Rule 901(b)(7) permits authentication through evidence that the records came from the office where they are kept.

State v. Oxendine · filed 1993-12-07Rules 803(8) and 901(b)(7)

The tax department is a public office and its records are admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 803(8). ... All that is required to authenticate public records is evidence that “a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.” G.S. 8C-1, Rule 901(b)(7).

Rule 803(8) permits an OSHA investigation report to be admitted as a public record, but the investigator’s unsupported conclusion about the accident’s cause may be excluded.

Haymore v. Thew Shovel Co. · filed 1994-08-16Rule 803(8)

The trial court properly introduced the OSHA report pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(8), which reads in pertinent part: ... Applying Mickens to the instant case, the trial court was correct in not allowing Mr. Saunders to offer his report’s conclusions on the cause of the accident.

Rule 803(4) does not admit statements made for diagnosis in preparation for trial.

State v. Harris · filed 1994-11-03Rule 803(4)

Since defendant’s statements to Dr. Brown were made in preparation for trial, they were not admissible under the hearsay exception contained in Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(4) does not except statements by a patient’s family members from the hearsay prohibition; only statements by the person being diagnosed or treated qualify.

State v. Jones · filed 1994-12-30Rule 803(4)

Likewise, we hold that the statements of the defendant’s mother and wife were inadmissible under Rule 803(4). The text of the rule makes it quite clear that only the statements of the person being diagnosed or treated are excepted from the prohibition against hearsay.

Rule 803(8)’s public records exception requires a reasonable inquiry into a record’s trustworthiness before it is admitted.

Tucker v. City of Clinton · filed 1995-11-21Rule 803(8)

Before admitting the clerk’s Order under the hearsay exception for public records, the Commission should have made such reasonable foundational inquiries necessary to ensure the Order contained a reasonable modicum of trustworthiness. ... Therefore, it was an abuse of discretion to admit the Order.

Rule 803(6) permits a regularly kept intake form to qualify as a business record when a person with knowledge completes it near the time of the event.

State v. Scott · filed 1996-06-13Rule 803(6)

Since the record was made by Funderburke, a person with knowledge, at or near the time she entered the shelter, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the intake form under Rule 803(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence as a business record made in the ordinary course of business.

Rule 803(6) permits qualifying business records, but a statement recorded within them needs its own hearsay exception.

State v. Sisk · filed 1996-08-06Rule 803(6)

Assuming arguendo, that the several affidavits, taken together, were properly admitted as business records because they were recorded by Mr. Fleshman and Mr. Emerson during the course of business, there still must be a separate hearsay exception for the statements by Mr. Arey, which comprised much of the affidavits, as these statements are double hearsay.

Rule 803(4) permits a child’s statements to a physician when they are made for medical diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Woody · filed 1996-11-05Rule 803(4)

Thus, we find that because N.W.’s statements to Dr. Lawrence were made during her medical diagnosis of N.W. they fall within the medical exception to the hearsay rule, and this assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 803(3) excludes statements that merely recite facts without expressing emotion, while allowing statements that combine fact and emotion.

State v. Marecek · filed 1998-07-21Rule 803(3)

Pursuant to Gray, witness testimony that recounts “mere recitation of fact” should be excluded, while testimony that includes both statements of fact and emotion may be admitted.

Rule 803(6) allows medical records made at or near the time of treatment, even when treatment occurs after the accident.

Chamberlain v. Thames · filed 1998-12-29Rule 803(6)

It is not necessary that the notes, records or memoranda be made at or near the time of the accident, but that they be made at or near the time of the treatment rendered to plaintiff.

Rule 803(4) permits a child's statements to a social worker when the statements lead to medical diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Crumbley · filed 1999-09-21Rule 803(4)

The statements resulted in A.J. receiving medical treatment within eight days from the date of the interview. The statements A.J. made to Womble were therefore admissible as statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.

Rule 803(6) permits an accident report based on statements from drivers with firsthand knowledge even when another driver was not interviewed.

Nunnery v. Baucom · filed 1999-11-16Rule 803(6)

The trial court thus did not err in admitting the report notwithstanding that Sergeant Lessane was unable to obtain a statement from the operator of “vehicle no. 3.”

Rule 803(4) admits hearsay only when the declarant intended the statements to obtain medical diagnosis or treatment and the statements were reasonably pertinent to that purpose.

State v. Hinnant · filed 2000-02-04Rule 803(4)

We hold that hearsay evidence is admissible under Rule 803(4) only when two inquiries are satisfied. First, the trial court must determine that the declarant intended to make the statements at issue in order to obtain medical diagnosis or treatment. The trial court may consider all objective circumstances of record in determining whether the declarant possessed the requisite intent. Second, the trial court must determine that the declarant’s statements were reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.

Rule 803(4) requires evidence that a declarant intended to obtain medical diagnosis or treatment and that the statements were reasonably pertinent to that purpose.

State v. Waddell · filed 2000-04-07Rule 803(4)

The record also lacks any evidence that there was a medical treatment motivation on the part of the child declarant or that Rockwell-Flick or anyone else explained to the child the medical purpose of the interview or the importance of truthful answers. Therefore, for the reasons stated in Hinnant, we conclude the Court of Appeals erred in determining that Rockwell-Flick’s testimony was properly admitted under Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(4) requires evidence that the declarant understood the medical purpose of a statement and that the statement was reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Watts · filed 2000-12-19Rule 803(4)

Applying these principles here, the testimony of Nurse Rushing and Drs. Johnson and Sheaffer regarding S’s statements was improperly admitted as substantive evidence under Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(4) allows statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment when they are reasonably pertinent to that purpose.

State v. Stancil · filed 2001-09-18Rule 803(4)

Likewise, in the instant case, the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that the victim made the statements for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment.

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment when they are reasonably pertinent to that purpose, even if the examination also serves a prosecutorial purpose.

State v. Isenberg · filed 2001-12-28Rule 803(4)

The trial court found the purpose of the examination was “dual, in that it was both for the purpose of medical intervention and for the purpose of future prosecution[,]” which meets the first prong of the test. ... The minor victim’s statements also are sufficient to meet the second prong of the Hinnant test. The statements the minor victim made were “reasonably pertinent to diagnosis.”

Rule 803(6) permits a custodian or other qualified witness to establish the foundation for admitting a business record; the person who prepared it need not testify.

CIT Group/Commercial Services, Inc. v. Vitale · filed 2002-02-19Rule 803(6)

We hold that plaintiff laid a proper foundation for admission of the Inventory Certification through the testimony of Gordon Jones, the custodian of the record. We also hold that the Inventory Certification met all requirements to be admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(6) may allow a custodian’s affidavit to establish the foundation for a business record, but it did not make the MMPI interpretation admissible under the circumstances here.

Barringer v. Mid Pines Development Group, L.L.C. · filed 2002-09-03Rule 803(6)

While a custodian's affidavit may provide the necessary foundation for admission pursuant to Rule 803(6), we conclude that, the adoption of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence notwithstanding, Hoyle is applicable to the facts here.

Rule 803(6) permits admission of business records when a witness familiar with the records and the system that produced them authenticates records made in the ordinary course of business at or near the time of the transaction.

State v. Frierson · filed 2002-10-01Rule 803(6)

There was evidence that the validation reports were made and kept in the ordinary course of business, were authenticated by a witness who was familiar with them and the system in which they were made, and the records were created at or near the time of the transactions involved. Therefore, the State laid a proper foundation for these records and the trial court accordingly, did not err in admitting them.

Rule 803(4) does not require a psychological or voir dire examination to determine whether a child intended statements for medical diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Carter · filed 2002-11-05Rule 803(4)

Thus, neither a psychological examination nor a voir dire examination is necessary ... for the determination of whether the declarant had the requisite intent to qualify his statements under the medical treatment exception of Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment when the declarant understands their medical purpose and the statements are reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Thornton · filed 2003-07-01Rule 803(4)

Given these circumstances, we believe that the trial court properly concluded that the statements were admissible, since BM made her statements to Potter with the understanding that they would lead to medical diagnosis or treatment and that the statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. Thus, Potter’s testimony as to BM’s interview statements were admissible under Rule 803(4), and this assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 803(6) permits a rental report as a business record when the agent makes entries from personal knowledge in the regular course of business at the time of each rental.

State v. Friend · filed 2004-06-01Rule 803(6)

In this case, the monthly business report that White sends to Gross qualifies under the business record exception because White recorded the rental entries based on personal knowledge and in the regular course of his business at the times that the property was rented.

Rule 803(4)’s medical diagnosis or treatment exception does not cover statements about fault that are not reasonably pertinent to care.

State v. Gattis · filed 2004-09-07Rule 803(4)

Since the statement regarding the gun going off accidentally during a fight is relevant only to fault, it does not fall within the scope of Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(4) permits a child’s statements to a nurse as substantive evidence when the child makes them for a medical purpose and they are pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Lewis · filed 2005-08-02Rule 803(4)

The record before us indicates that both C.L. and M.L. had the requisite intent to make their statements for a medical purpose, and we therefore conclude that the first part of the inquiry is met. ... Therefore, the second part of the inquiry is satisfied, and defendant’s argument with respect to the admission of the videotaped statements as substantive evidence is overruled.

Rule 803(6) allows a custodian’s affidavit to establish the foundation for admitting business records when it confirms that the records were made by knowledgeable persons during the regular course of business at or near the time of the recorded events.

In Re SW · filed 2006-02-07Rule 803(6)

An affidavit from the custodian of the records in question that states that the records are true and correct copies of records made, to the best of the affiant's knowledge, by persons having knowledge of the information set forth, during the regular course of business at or near the time of the acts, events or conditions recorded is sufficient to satisfy the foundation requirements of Rule 803(6). Chamberlain v. Thames, 131 N.C.App. 705, 716-17, 509 S.E.2d 443, 450 (1998). Affidavits satisfying these requirements are included in the record for exhibits two through six. Accordingly, these exhibits were admissible and respondent's trial counsel did not fail to provide effective assistance in failing to object to their admission.

Rule 803(6) permits a laboratory report to qualify as a business record when a qualified witness identifies a promptly prepared report and there is no evidence that its preparers had a motive to distort the results.

State v. Melton · filed 2006-02-07Rule 803(6)

Under the test set forth in Deanes, the laboratory report at issue in the present case qualified as a business record.

Rule 803(6) requires a foundation showing that a record was made as part of regularly conducted activity before it qualifies for the business records exception to hearsay.

Gilreath v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2006-05-16Rule 803(6)

There is nothing in Johnson's affidavit to establish the foundation that the facsimile cover page is a record of regularly conducted activity which would fall under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, as required by Rule 803(6).

Rules 803(6) and 803(8) permit routine laboratory reports recording purely ministerial observations to be admitted as business records.

State v. Forte · filed 2006-05-05Rule 803(6), Rule 803(8)

Therefore, these reports are records of purely ministerial observations that do not offend the public records exception and were properly admitted as business records.

Rule 803(3) permits testimony about a person’s statement of a then-existing plan or intent to engage in a future act.

State v. Taylor · filed 2006-07-18Rule 803(3)

As in McElrath, Braxton, and Taylor precedents, McFalls’s testimony showed the victim’s then-existing plan to engage in a future act. The trial court properly admitted the testimony pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(3).

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment when they are reasonably pertinent to that diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Burgess · filed 2007-01-02Rule 803(4)

We find the present case indistinguishable from Lewis and Isenberg, and affirm the trial court’s admission of the videotaped interviews pursuant to Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(6) allows a qualified witness familiar with a business’s procedures to testify about its handling of checks without having observed the bank’s processing of them.

State v. Cagle · filed 2007-03-06Rule 803(6)

However, a review of the transcript makes it clear that Ms. Satterfield testified with respect to the Mali’s handling of the checks, not the bank’s processing of the same. As Chief of Security for ten years, she had clear first hand knowledge of the Mall’s procedures for handling problematic checks. If the problem stemmed from issues with the Mall’s handling of the checks, she was available for cross-examination. Consequently, her testimony met the criteria contemplated by N.C.G.S. § 8C-l, Rule 803(6).

Rule 803(6) permits a neighborhood security guard’s pass on information form to be admitted as a business record when its custodian testifies that it was kept in the ordinary course of business.

State v. Hewson · filed 2007-03-20Rule 803(6)

Chief James testified that the pass on information form was kept in the ordinary course of business and that he was the custodian of the record. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the record qualifies as a business record pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(6).

Rule 803(6) permits admission of qualifying police records as records of regularly conducted activity and is not limited by Rule 803(8).

State v. Wise · filed 2006-06-20Rule 803(6)

The legislature chose not to limit the applicability of Rule 803(6) to police records and reports which qualify as records of regularly conducted activity. Therefore, there is no merit in defendant’s argument that Rule 803(6) is limited by Rule 803(8).

Rule 803(6) permits admission of business records through a qualified custodian, and a witness familiar with admissible records may testify about their contents without personal knowledge of the underlying events.

North Carolina Industrial Capital, LLC v. Clayton · filed 2007-08-21Rule 803(6)

However, it is also clear that the documents to which Kaplan referred were admissible in evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(6) requires a proper foundation to admit medical records under the business records exception.

In Re Tm · filed 2007-12-18Rule 803(6)

While petitioners did not lay a proper foundation for the admission of medical records, the extensive firsthand medical testimony by Drs. Kocis and Lury and Nurse Moore in treating T.M. provided more than sufficient evidence to support a finding and conclusion that T.M. was abused. Respondents have not met their burden of showing they were prejudiced by the admission of the medical records.

Rule 803(6) permits testimony about an agency report prepared as part of the agency's regular duties and ordinary business.

State v. Sizemore · filed 2008-08-05Rule 803(6)

The agent who testified as to the report testified that the deceased agent had created the report as part of his regular duties with the agency and in the ordinary course of agency business. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(6). [2] As such, the trial court did not err in allowing the testimony to be presented.

Rule 803(6) permits a witness familiar with how records are obtained and filed to introduce laboratory test results under the business records exception.

In Re SDJ · filed 2008-09-02Rule 803(6)

As such, petitioner's witness was qualified to introduce the results of the drug test and the letter from ADS under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(4) requires affirmative evidence that a declarant made a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment before the statement may be admitted under that hearsay exception.

State v. Hilton · filed 2009-01-06Rule 803(4)

Given that Mr. Potter responded with an uncertain, "I think so," when asked if he believed the declarants understood the concept of telling the truth, we find that the court erred in allowing the admission of these statements under Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(6) permits a record custodian to establish the foundation for admitting medical records without testimony from a nurse or doctor.

Williams v. Bird · filed 2009-03-17Rule 803(6)

As N.C. R. Evid. 803(6) explicitly permits use of a record custodian's testimony to establish a foundation for admission of the records, and does not require that this foundation be established by a "nurse or a doctor" as stated by the trial court, we conclude the trial court erred in excluding those portions of Plaintiff's medical records which were not irrelevant, immaterial, or hearsay upon hearsay.

Rule 803(4) requires statements offered under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to be made for that purpose and reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Norman · filed 2009-05-05Rule 803(4)

Therefore, assuming a third-party’s statements to medical personnel could be admissible under Rule 803(4), the trial court nonetheless properly excluded the statements of J.G.’s mother to Taylor because her statements failed both prongs of the Hinnant test.

Rule 803(8) covers records an agency keeps of its official submissions to another government agency.

Blankenship v. Bartlett · filed 2009-08-28Rule 803(8)

Thus, the records kept by the Administrative Office of the Courts concerning its submissions to the United States Department of Justice clearly fall within the purview of Rule of Evidence 803(8) as public records.

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under an exception to the hearsay rule.

State v. Spann · filed 2010-01-05Rule 803(4)

The statements of D.H., read into the record by Dr. Brown, were clearly for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and therefore fell under that exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(4) admits a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment when the declarant intended that purpose and the statement was reasonably pertinent to it.

State v. Carter · filed 2011-11-01Rule 803(4)

In evaluating whether an extrajudicial statement is admissible pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(4), the trial court must determine that (1) “the declarant intended to make the statements at issue in order to obtain medical diagnosis or treatment” and that (2) “the declarant’s statements were reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.” ... As a result, the trial court did not err by refusing to admit Vanessa’s statement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(4) does not admit a statement made to prepare a criminal defense when the statement is not shown to be pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Lowery · filed 2012-02-21Rule 803(4)

In sum, because defendant saw Dr. Fisher for the purpose of preparing a defense, and the statement defendant sought to admit ... was not shown to be pertinent to a medical diagnosis or treatment, we hold that defendant’s statement to Dr. Fisher was not admissible under Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(6) permits GPS tracking data to be admitted as a business record when testimony establishes a sufficient foundation of trustworthiness.

State v. Jackson · filed 2013-09-17Rule 803(6)

We hold Sergeant Scheppegrell’s testimony established a sufficient foundation of trustworthiness for the tracking evidence to be admitted as a business record.

Rule 803(6) allows computerized business records when a witness familiar with the system and how the data was gathered lays a sufficient foundation, even without entering the data or knowing the server's maintenance history.

State v. Hamlin · filed 2015-07-21Rule 803(6)

Regardless of the fact the Mr. Howell did not generate the electronic data himself by entering it into the computer or otherwise demonstrate extensive knowledge of First Data's server maintenance history, he sufficiently demonstrated his understanding of the computer system, the method by which the data was gathered and transmitted, and the business record that was submitted into evidence. Accordingly, we hold that Mr. Howell's testimony provided a sufficient foundation for the admission of the computer printouts as a business record.

Rule 803(6) permits admission of a computerized business record when a witness familiar with the records and how they are made lays a sufficient foundation.

State v. Hicks · filed 2015-10-20Rule 803(6)

Officer Lee’s testimony provided a sufficient foundation for the admission of the computer report from the NPLEx database as a business record.

Rule 803(6) permits a witness familiar with business records and how they are maintained to testify about matters in those records when a proper foundation is established.

In re: C.B., D.B. · filed 2016-01-19Rule 803(6)

Given this foundation, Young’s testimony regarding matters contained in DSS’s business records—namely, the circumstances and events underlying the petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights—was clearly admissible under the rule announced in U.S. Leasing Corp.

Rule 803(4)'s medical diagnosis exception requires proof that the declarant understood his statements would lead to a medical diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Martin · filed 2017-04-04Rule 803(4)

For this exception to apply, it must be established that the declarant understood that his statements would lead to a medical diagnosis or treatment.

Rule 803(4) permits a parent’s statements about an infant’s injuries when made for medical diagnosis or treatment; the declarant need not be the patient.

In re: J.M. & J.M. · filed 2017-09-19Rule 803(4)

We perceive no limitation on allowing the parent of a child unable to relay his or her medical condition in the plain language of N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(4), and such an interpretation is not in conflict with our Supreme Court’s guidance in Hinnant.

Business records may be authenticated by a witness familiar with the records and the system used to make them; the witness need not have made the records.

State v. Allen · filed 2018-03-06Rule 803(6)

Pursuant to Wilson, and contrary to defendant’s argument, it is of no legal moment that Harris did not herself make or execute the 2015 Notice about which she testified as it is clear she was “familiar . . . with the system under which they [were] made.” Id. (citations omitted). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the 2015 Notice into evidence, as Harris’s testimony satisfied this Court’s test for receiving business records.

Rule 803(6) permits GPS tracking evidence as a business record when testimony establishes a sufficient foundation for its trustworthiness.

State v. Waycaster · filed 2018-08-07Rule 803(6)

We hold that his testimony established a sufficient foundation of trustworthiness for the tracking evidence to be admissible as a business record.

Rule 803(6) permits admission of job applications and interview notes kept in the regular course of hiring when a qualified witness establishes the employer’s recordkeeping practice.

Weaver v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. · filed 2018-09-04Rule 803(6)

Therefore, the ALJ correctly overruled petitioner’s objection based on hearsay, since Mr. Lawson’s application and the other records regarding his qualifications were business records admissible under Rule 803(6).

Rule 803(6)’s business records exception does not cover an opinion letter prepared for court when producing such letters is not a regular practice of the business.

Peeler v. Joseph · filed 2018-12-18Rule 803(6)

As pediatrician offices are not in the regular practice of producing opinion letters on expert reports for court, this letter fails to meet Rule 803(6)’s requirements that the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation.

Section 8C-1, Rule 803(8), permits a properly authenticated birth certificate to prove a birth date when the statement is sufficiently trustworthy.

State v. DeJesus · filed 2019-05-07Rule 803(8)

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the statement of the victim’s birth date contained in State’s Exhibit 3, which was properly authenticated, was sufficiently trustworthy, and was therefore admissible as a public record.

Rule 803(6) permits tenant complaints as business records when testimony establishes that the housing authority kept them in the course of its regularly conducted business activity.

Raleigh Hous. Auth. v. Winston · filed 2019-09-17Rule 803(6)

We reject Defendant’s argument that the written complaints submitted to Plaintiff in the fall and winter of 2017 did not fall under the “business record” exception to the hearsay rule and were therefore inadmissible. Not only did Defendant effectively admit to the conduct described therein, but the property manager’s testimony sufficiently established that Plaintiff kept records of such complaints submitted by its tenants in the course of Plaintiff’s regularly conducted business activity. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(6).

Rule 803(6) allows properly authenticated medical records under the business records exception to hearsay when they are made and kept in the ordinary course of business.

State v. Romano · filed 2019-11-19Rule 803(6)

Furthermore, medical records may qualify as business records, State v. Miller, 80 N.C. App. 425, 428, 342 S.E.2d 553, 555 (1986), and therefore, may be admissible as an exception to hearsay under the business records exception if properly authenticated. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(6) (2017). ... Thus, the blood test was conducted by the hospital and the records documenting the results of the blood test were for medical treatment purposes and made and kept in the ordinary course of business.

Rule 803(6) permits hospital records as business records when a qualified witness familiar with the records and recordkeeping procedures authenticates them and the records show no lack of trustworthiness.

State v. Elder · filed 2021-07-20Rule 803(6)

She further testified that she was familiar with WakeMed’s medical recordkeeping procedures at the relevant time; that she was familiar with A.H.’s medical records; that she provided care to A.H. during a portion of her stay at WakeMed; and that A.H.’s medical records were created and maintained contemporaneously with her care. ... Thus, we conclude that this testimony was sufficient to authenticate A.H.’s medical records.

Rule 803(6) allows drug test reports under the business records exception when a qualified witness establishes that they were made by someone with knowledge and kept in the regular course of business.

In re: K.H. · filed 2022-01-04Rule 803(6)

Barnes’ testimony sufficiently demonstrated that the records were made by someone with knowledge, and were transmitted and retained in the course of UBS and Omega Laboratories’ regularly conducted business activities. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the reports containing the results of the drug tests pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(6) does not admit records prepared for litigation and presented without a qualified custodian as ordinary business records.

State v. Lester · filed 2023-12-05Rule 803(6)

The documents were compiled, derived, and presented for the upcoming litigation, and the Exhibits were not compiled nor maintained in the regular course of Verizon’s business nor presented by a qualified custodian. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(6).

Under the version of Rule 803(6) applicable before March 2024, an unnotarized custodian statement made under penalty of perjury could authenticate business records if it established the required foundation.

State v. Hollis · filed 2024-08-06Rule 803(6)

The letters from SunTrust and Amazon employees, made under penalty of perjury and communicating that the records were made in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, made at or near the time of the activity by a person with knowledge of it, and that it was the regular practice of the business to make such a record, fulfill the purpose of authentication. The trial court did not reversibly err by admitting the records into evidence.

Rule 803(4) permits a patient’s statement about another person’s abuse when the statement is reasonably pertinent to diagnosing the patient’s own mental health.

State v. Anderson · filed 2024-08-06Rule 803(4)

Therefore, as stated above, the trial court properly admitted Lana’s statement under Rule 803(4) because Lana was “the person being diagnosed or treated,” see Jones, 339 N.C. at 146, 451 S.E.2d at 842, and her statement was “made for purposes of medical diagnosis” and was “reasonably pertinent to diagnosis,” see Hinnant, 351 N.C. at 284, 523 S.E.2d at 667.

Rule 803(6) permits a custodian to authenticate business records with a certificate made under penalty of perjury without notarization.

State v. Graves · filed 2024-11-05Rule 803(6)

The certificate under penalty of perjury fulfills the purpose of authentication.

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment when they are reasonably pertinent to that diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Brown · filed 2024-12-03Rule 803(4)

The trial court did not err by admitting the recording under the statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment exception to hearsay.

Rule 803(6) permits properly admitted child welfare reports to serve as substantive evidence supporting adjudicatory findings.

In re: K.E.P. · filed 2025-04-16Rule 803(6)

However, the portions of these cases relevant to Respondent-Mother’s argument concern admissible nonhearsay, rather than hearsay properly admitted pursuant to the business records exception, as was the case here.

Rule 803(4) does not permit a patient's identification of an assailant when the identity is not reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Briddell · filed 2026-02-18Rule 803(4)

As such, we agree with Defendant that the portion of Kamren’s statement identifying Defendant as his assailant was not pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment, thereby failing the second prong of the Hinnant test. The trial court, therefore, erred in admitting Kamren’s statement under Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(6) permits a witness familiar with qualifying business records to testify about their contents and significance, even when the records themselves were not admitted.

In re: R.C. · filed 2026-03-18Rule 803(6)

Thus, while Social Worker Contreras’s knowledge regarding PCDSS’s attempts to contact Respondent-Mother was limited to the contents of the PCDSS file, she could properly testify about the records and their significance because the records were admissible under the business records exception.

Rule 803(8) does not admit a public agency report based on an allegation from an unknown source whose identity cannot be assessed for trustworthiness.

State v. Alcantar-Conrado · filed 2026-05-06Rule 803(8)

However, we hold the remainder of the 7 April 2022 DSS report is inadmissible, as well: the report was created based on an allegation from an unknown individual.

Rule 803(6) permits records of regularly conducted activities, including medical records, to be admitted under the business records exception to hearsay.

In re: K.R. · filed 2026-05-20Rule 803(6)

Under Rule 803(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, a party can circumvent the hearsay rule and admit evidence of regularly conducted activities as business records, including medical records.

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for treatment to a qualified physician, psychologist, or social worker to be admitted as substantive evidence.

State v. Quarg · filed 1993-07-02Rule 803(4)

This Court has held that statements made for purposes of obtaining treatment to physicians, psychologists, and social workers, if qualified as experts, are admissible as substantive evidence pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(4). ... Hence, the limiting instruction was, in fact, favorable to defendant at the point in the trial where it was given.

Rule 901 permits a recording to be authenticated through testimony from a knowledgeable witness or through voice identification.

State v. Holder · filed 1992-06-25Rule 901(b)

Within this nonexclusive list, the legislature provided that recordings may be authenticated by means of testimony by a witness who has knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be, Rule 901(b)(1), and by means of voice identification, Rule 901(a)(5).

Rule 901(b)(5) requires a witness identifying a caller by voice to base that opinion on hearing the voice under circumstances connecting it to the alleged speaker; the caller’s self-identification alone is insufficient.

Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Bellamy · filed 1992-03-03Rule 901(b)(5)

Mr. Price failed to show that he had an opinion as to the identity of the caller based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the speaker other than the phone call.

Rule 901(b)(8) permits authentication of a document more than twenty years old when its condition raises no suspicion and it was kept where an authentic document would likely be found.

Rowan County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co. · filed 1991-07-02Rule 901(b)(8)

Even in the absence of stipulation, we find, on the basis of Rule 901(b)(8), no error by the trial court in admitting U-110, U-111, U-129 and the remaining Saranac documents, which include the agreement among eleven companies "to underwrite certain experiments" at Saranac Laboratory, reports on the experiments at Saranac, correspondence between Saranac and the experiments' sponsors, and correspondence between Gypsum and the other sponsors or their agent. No suspicion concerning the authenticity of those documents is raised by their condition or internal consistency; their archival locations were logical for authentic documents; and they had been in existence for more than twenty years.

Rule 901(a) permits authentication through direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find that an item is what its proponent claims.

State v. Mercer · filed 1988-04-19Rule 901(a)

Under the identical Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal courts have held that a prima facie showing, by direct or circumstantial evidence, such that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity, is enough. ... In this case, defendant was sole occupant of the residence in which the documents were found. This is sufficient for them to be admitted into evidence, and the weight given the evidence is for the jury to decide.

Rule 901(b)(5) permits identification of a transmitted voice based on prior familiarity with the speaker; a difference in how the voice was heard affects the evidence’s weight, not its admissibility.

State v. Mullen · filed 1990-05-15Rule 901(b)(5)

Rule 901(b)(5) merely provides that the identification need only be under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker. ... The fact that these prior circumstances did not involve the same mechanical means as used in the monitoring of defendant only goes to the weight of the evidence.