N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 901 permits authentication of a writing through evidence sufficient to support a finding that it is what its proponent claims, including a nonexpert’s opinion based on prior familiarity with the handwriting.

State v. Wiggins · filed 1993-07-02Rule 901(a), (b)(2)

It was not error for the trial court to admit the letter if it could reasonably determine that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that “the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 901. ... After reviewing Moore’s testimony concerning his familiarity with defendant’s handwriting, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s admission of the letter into evidence.

Rule 901 permits a tape recording to be authenticated by a participant’s testimony that it truly records the conversation.

State v. Williams · filed 1993-09-10Rule 901

Under Rule 901, authentication is satisfied “by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 901 (1992). The State provided such evidence in the form of testimony by Angelo Farmer that the tape was a true recording of his conversation with defendant.

Rule 901(b)(3) permits a jury to compare disputed handwriting with an authenticated sample without expert or lay testimony when the trial court finds enough similarity for the jury to infer that the disputed handwriting is genuine.

State v. Owen · filed 1998-08-18Rule 901(b)(3)

In determining the authenticity of a document, it is a well-settled evidentiary principle that a jury may compare a known sample of a person’s handwriting with the handwriting on a contested document without the aid of either expert or lay testimony.

Rule 901 allows a tape recording to be authenticated by evidence that it is what its proponent claims, including identification of the voices on it.

State v. Rourke · filed 2001-06-05Rule 901(a), (b)(5)

Under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (1999), a tape recording may be authenticated by “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Rule 901(b)(5) includes voice identification among the examples of means by which a party may authenticate a tape. ... We find this evidence sufficient to support a finding that the tape was what the State contended it to be: a recording of the 911 call made during this incident.

Section 8C-1 requires a party offering a writing to prove its contents to authenticate it; failure to do so permits its exclusion.

Kroh v. Kroh · filed 2002-08-20Rule 901

As she was offering these reports into evidence to prove their contents (and how she interpreted those contents, regardless of their actual truth or falsity), Teresa Kroh was required to produce the original reports (under Rule 1002) and properly authenticate them (under Rule 901). Since she failed to do so, these reports were properly excluded by the trial court.

Rule 901(b)(4) permits a document to be authenticated through its distinctive characteristics and surrounding circumstances.

State v. Reed · filed 2002-10-15Rule 901(b)(4)

Although the statement on the card was not in defendant’s handwriting and defendant did not testify to the card’s authenticity, the card was properly authenticated by the State based on its “distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901(b)(4) (2001).

Rule 901 of § 8C-1 allows participants to authenticate a recorded call by identifying the voices on it.

State v. Gaither · filed 2003-11-04

The seven-prong test established in Lynch has been superceded by North Carolina Rule of Evidence 901, which states that “[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Art. 9. ... Thus, we hold that the audiotape presented in this case was properly authenticated by the testimony of Phillips and Short, both of whom were able to identify their own voice and the voices of each other on the tape.

Rule 901(a) allows an audiotape to be authenticated by testimony sufficient to establish that the recording is accurate and is what its proponent claims.

State v. Jones · filed 2004-05-07Rule 901(a)

We conclude that the testimony during the voir dire hearing was sufficient to establish the accuracy of the tape, demonstrate that it was legally obtained, and support a finding that the tape contained competent evidence of defendant’s malice, intent and ill will towards the victims. Therefore, the prosecutor properly authenticated the audiotape.

Rule 902(4) permits a certified copy of a public record to be admitted without testimony from an authenticating witness.

State v. McNeil · filed 2004-08-17Rule 902(4)

However, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 902 (2003) provides that Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to ... [a] copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification[.] N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 902(4) (emphasis added). ... Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not commit plain error by allowing the State to introduce into evidence the certified copies of defendant's prior felony conviction judgment sheets.

Rule 901 permits a videotape to be authenticated with evidence sufficient to show it is what its proponent claims.

State v. Prentice · filed 2005-06-07Rule 901(a)

The authentication or identification requirement is satisfied by "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." ... We conclude the trial court properly admitted the video tape and the photographs taken therefrom, and we overrule defendant's first assignment of error.

Rule 901(a) permits authentication when the evidence supports a finding that a document is what its proponent claims.

Herring v. Food Lion, LLC · filed 2005-12-20Rule 901(a)

"The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (2003). We conclude Metz's testimony was sufficient to support a finding that the document produced by plaintiff was a copy of defendant's employee handbook in effect at the time of plaintiff's accident.

Rule 901 requires evidence to be authenticated as what its proponent claims it is; testimony from a witness with knowledge may provide that authentication.

Brown v. City of Winston-Salem · filed 2006-03-07Rule 901(a), (b)(1)

In addition, Rule 901 of our Rules of Evidence requires that “as a condition precedent to admissibility” evidence must be authenticated or identified “sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” ... In the present case, petitioners failed to produce any evidence or testimony regarding the methodology used in analyzing the data in the way in which petitioners did, and they failed to provide any testimony which would authenticate counsel’s spreadsheets and the accuracy of the data contained in them. ... Therefore, we hold the trial court’s ruling that petitioners’ spreadsheets could be admitted only for the limited purpose of showing petitioners’ contentions was proper, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Rule 901(b)(4) permits a letter to be authenticated through its distinctive characteristics and surrounding circumstances without testimony from someone familiar with the purported author’s handwriting.

State v. Young · filed 2007-10-16Rule 901(b)(4)

However, Rule 901 also provides that authentication or identification may be established through distinctive characteristics and the like, i.e., through “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901(b)(4). ... However, familiarity with one’s handwriting is not the only method to authenticate a letter. ... Accordingly, based on the evidence presented by the State, the trial court did not err in admitting State’s exhibits 70, 71, and 72 into evidence.

Rule 901(b)(1) permits a witness with knowledge to authenticate evidence by testifying that it is what the proponent claims.

State v. Biggs · filed 2009-07-07Rule 901(b)(1)

Authentication may be accomplished through the testimony of a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be. See N.C. Gen. Stat § 8C-1, Rule 901(b)(1) (2007). ... His testimony satisfies the requirements of Rule 901 and was sufficient to authenticate the evidence.

Rule 901 permits a surveillance report to be authenticated by testimony from its preparer that it accurately reflects what he personally observed.

Bryant v. NEWCON, INC. · filed 2009-09-15Rule 901(b)(1)

At the hearing, Mr. Baier testified that he had personally conducted surveillance of Plaintiff; that as a result of conducting that surveillance, Mr. Baier prepared the three reports at issue; and that the reports provided an accurate reflection of the things that he observed while watching Plaintiff. Such testimony is sufficient to conform with the authentication requirements of Rule 901.

Rule 901(b)(3) permits a jury to compare a known handwriting sample with a disputed document without expert or lay testimony.

State v. Skipper · filed 2009-11-03Rule 901(b)(3)

"[I]t is a well-settled evidentiary principle that a jury may compare a known sample of a person's handwriting with the handwriting on a contested document without the aid of either expert or lay testimony." State v. Owen, 130 N.C. App. 505, 509, 503 S.E.2d 426, 429 (1998) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901(b)(3)). Therefore, the jury could properly compare the signatures on the pawn ticket and the Adult Rights form and conclude that both belonged to the defendant, allowing an inference that defendant constructively possessed the TV when it was pawned at Pawn USA on 7 October 2004.

Rule 901(a) requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that an exhibit is what its proponent claims before it may be admitted.

State v. Hartley · filed 2011-05-17Rule 901(a)

First, as to defendant’s claim that the swabs were not properly authenticated, Rule 901 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence requires “authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility” of evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (2009). ... We hold that Exhibit 39 was properly authenticated.

Rule 901(a) requires an audio recording admitted as a business record to be authenticated by evidence sufficient to establish the caller’s identity.

State v. Mobley · filed 2010-08-03Rule 901(a)

An audio recording admitted under Rule 803 must nevertheless be authenticated under Rule 901. ... This circumstantial evidence authenticated the caller’s identity in State’s Exhibit 13. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the call into evidence.

Rules 901 and 902 require documents offered as evidence to be authenticated or qualify for self-authentication.

Rankin v. Food Lion · filed 2011-03-01Rule 901; Rule 902

As a result, we must necessarily conclude that neither of these documents was authenticated in the manner required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 901 or 902, demonstrating that neither of them was properly before the trial court at the time of the hearing on Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Rule 901(b)(1) permits a witness with knowledge of phone records to authenticate them.

State v. Crawley · filed 2011-12-20Rule 901(b)(1)

Detective Chappell’s testimony as to the same records as Mr. Harger sufficiently satisfied the “witness with knowledge” standard provided for under Rule 901(b).

Rule 901(a) permits a text message to be authenticated through circumstances and testimony reasonably showing who sent it.

State v. Wilkerson · filed 2012-10-16Rule 901(a)

However, such issues in witness credibility are for the trial court to weigh in making its determination of authenticity and we see nothing in these facts to indicate this was done abusively. From the circumstances and testimony provided above, which the trial court carefully weighed, it is reasonable to find that Defendant was the sender of the text message.

Rule 901 requires a party offering a document to provide evidence that it is what the party claims; an unauthenticated document cannot be considered on summary judgment.

Carter v. Clements Walker Pllc · filed 2014-01-10Rule 901

Evidence must be authentic to be admissible. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901. ... Accordingly, Exhibit A is wholly inadmissible and may not be considered in ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Rule 901 permits a witness familiar with a person’s handwriting to authenticate a letter attributed to that person.

State v. Melton · filed 2014-03-18Rule 901(b)(2)

Based on Lechon’s testimony concerning his familiarity with defendant’s handwriting, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the letter was written by defendant.

Rule 902 makes a sworn affidavit signed by a deputy clerk self-authenticating, so it needs no separate authentication under Rule 901.

State v. McCoy · filed 2014-06-03Rule 902

The affidavit was “SWORN/AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE” a Deputy Clerk of Superior Clerk who also signed the document, which is a self-authenticating document pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 8C-1, Rule 902, and thus the affidavit did not need to be authenticated pursuant to Rule 901.

Rule 901 permits photographs of text messages to be authenticated through testimony from the officer who recovered them and a participant who confirms the conversation.

State v. Gray · filed 2014-06-03Rule 901(a)

We hold the testimony in this case by Detective Snowden, who recovered the text messages from Mr. Diaz’s cell phone, and Ms. McKoy, with whom Mr. Diaz was communicating in the text messages illustrated in exhibit twelve, was sufficient to authenticate exhibit twelve.

Rule 901(a) requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what its proponent claims; a gap in the chain of custody generally does not warrant reversal without a showing of tampering or alteration.

State v. Robinson · filed 2014-10-21Rule 901(a)

As for defendant’s argument that the evidence was not properly authenticated, it is a general principle that a “requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (2013). ... “Although a defendant may point to gaps or flaws in the chain of custody or procedure, a showing that the evidence was tampered with or altered is generally required for a reversal of the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence.” ... Defendant has not made this showing.

Rule 901(a) allows an audio recording to be authenticated through testimony sufficient to show that it is what its proponent claims.

State v. McGee · filed 2014-10-21Rule 901(a)

Thus, defendant properly authenticated the audio recording as a matter of law.

Rule 901 requires evidence sufficient to authenticate a document; an investigator’s unverified signature cannot authenticate a purported statement.

State v. Wynn · filed 2014-12-31Rule 901(a)

Therefore, assuming, arguendo, that it was appropriate to authenticate the Document in the other ways identified above, we believe it was error for the Document to be authenticated by the admission of the purported signature/acknowledgment of Investigator Gaskins. The State did not offer any evidence to authenticate Investigator Gaskins’ signature, nor did the State call him to testify.

Rule 901(a) permits a webpage to be authenticated through strong circumstantial evidence without tracing an electronic link to its owner.

State v. Ford · filed 2016-02-16Rule 901(a)

On this record, the evidence is sufficient to support a prima facie showing that the myspace webpage at issue was defendant’s webpage. While tracking the webpage directly to defendant through an appropriate electronic footprint or link would provide some technological evidence, such evidence is not required in a case such as this, where strong circumstantial evidence exists that this webpage and its unique content belong to defendant.

Rule 901 requires a proper foundation to authenticate a surveillance video before it is admitted as substantive evidence.

State v. Moore · filed 2017-05-16Rule 901

A careful review of the transcript in this case reveals that no testimony was elicited at trial concerning the type of recording equipment used to make the video, its condition on 21 May 2015, or its general reliability. No witness was asked whether the video accurately depicted events that he had observed, and no testimony was offered on the subject. We conclude that the State failed to offer a proper foundation for introduction of the video as either illustrative or substantive evidence.

Photographs offered solely to illustrate a witness’s testimony are admissible when they fairly and accurately illustrate its subject; they need not meet the authentication standard for substantive evidence.

State v. Little · filed 2017-04-18Rule 901

Photographs are admissible for illustrative purposes if they fairly and accurately illustrate the subject of a witness’s testimony. ... We conclude that the trial court did not err by allowing the State’s witnesses to illustrate their testimony with State’s Exhibits Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and that defendant has failed to show that he is entitled to relief on the basis of this argument.

Rule 901(a) permits admission of cocaine evidence when the State authenticates it through a sufficient chain of custody.

State v. Lindsey · filed 2017-05-02Rule 901(a)

Real evidence of cocaine is admissible in a criminal trial if the proponent properly authenticates the evidence. ... Because the State established a chain of custody sufficient to admit the evidence analyzed in the Crime Lab Report, the report itself was also properly admitted as Exhibit 3.

Rule 901 permits a surveillance video to be authenticated through evidence that the recording process was reliable and the video offered at trial was the one it produced.

State v. Snead · filed 2016-04-15(b)(9)

Steckler’s testimony, therefore, satisfied Rule 901, and the trial court did not err in admitting the video into evidence.

Rule 901(b)(1) permits a witness with knowledge to authenticate a photograph as what it is claimed to be.

State v. Thompson · filed 2017-06-20Rule 901(b)(1)

Before the trial court admitted the photograph for this purpose, Detective Gillen testified as to how Rascoe located the photograph and used it to identify Defendant and Grey, authenticating the photograph pursuant to Rule 901(b)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Rule 901 requires evidence that a surveillance recording process was reliable and that the offered video was produced by that process to authenticate it as substantive evidence.

State v. Moore · filed 2017-07-18Rule 901(b)(9)

A careful review of the transcript in this case reveals that no testimony was elicited at trial concerning the type of recording equipment used to make the video, its condition on 21 May 2015, or its general reliability. No witness was asked whether the video accurately depicted events that he had observed, and no testimony was offered on the subject. We conclude that the State failed to offer a proper foundation for introduction of the video as either illustrative or substantive evidence.

Rule 901(a) allows a drug exhibit to be admitted when testimony identifies it and a change in its form is not material.

State v. Dawkins · filed 2019-12-17Rule 901(a)

We similarly conclude that Defendant has not shown that the substance within Exhibit 6 underwent a material change raising admissibility concerns, and that the trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by admitting Exhibit 6.

Rule 901(b)(4) permits social media comments to be authenticated through distinctive characteristics and surrounding circumstances sufficient to establish their claimed author.

State v. Clemons · filed 2020-12-01Rule 901(b)(4)

Applying Rule 901(b)(4) here, the Facebook comments were properly authenticated prior to admission as the distinctive characteristics of the post in conjunction with the circumstances are sufficient to conclude Defendant wrote the comments.

Rule 901(a) allows a witness’s admissions to authenticate portions of a video when they establish that it depicts her during a relevant time period.

Hill v. Boone · filed 2021-09-21Rule 901(a)

Plaintiff’s admission regarding a depiction of her at a relevant time period vis-à-vis her health status, years after the surgery and close to the trial date, constituted an authentication of the portions of the videotape surveillance that included her grandchild, and were appropriate to use, if relevant, for impeachment purposes.

Rule 901(a) requires evidence sufficient to show that an exhibit is what its proponent claims; a party’s description of screenshots she did not participate in was insufficient to authenticate them.

Waly v. Alkamary · filed 2021-08-17Rule 901(a)

Based upon Mother’s own statement, she was not a party to the alleged screenshots and her only knowledge of the information needed to authenticate the screenshots would have come only from her sister, who was not present to testify. Mother did not properly authenticate the screenshots and the trial court did not err by sustaining Father’s objection to admission of this evidence.

Rule 901(b)(1) allows a witness with firsthand knowledge to authenticate an electronic posting by testifying that it is what the proponent claims.

Clark v. Clark · filed 2021-12-07Rule 901(b)(1)

Here, Plaintiff authenticated the libelous electronic postings through her own testimony. Plaintiff testified that she personally saw the advertisement, recognized it to be about her, and made a copy of the ad. Likewise, Plaintiff authenticated the Facebook advertisement by testifying the advertisement was sent directly to her by a third party and the advertisement exhibits characteristics of Facebook as a social media site, in that it demonstrates where viewers can interact with the posting. Accordingly, we hold Plaintiff sufficiently authenticated each libelous posting through first-hand knowledge under Rule 901(b)(1).

Rule 902(4) permits certified public records to be authenticated without live witness testimony, so a court must consider whether records qualify before excluding them for lack of a live witness.

Kozec v. Murphy · filed 2022-12-29Rule 902(4)

We therefore hold that a trial court acts under a misapprehension of law and abuses its discretion where it excludes documents on the basis that there is no live witness present to authenticate them without first determining whether they fall under Rule 902(4).

Rule 901(b)(4) allows electronic messages to be authenticated through distinctive references to the sender’s relationship with the recipient and knowledge of the recipient’s personal life.

State v. Davenport · filed 2025-01-15Rule 901(b)(4)

These references to the nature of the sender’s relationship to Frankie Davenport, as well as to the sender’s knowledge about details of Frankie Davenport’s personal life, are sufficient “distinctive characteristics” to authenticate the messages.

Rule 403 permits admission of bloody clothing when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and Rule 901 permits a phone extraction authenticated by the officer who performed it.

State v. Joyner · filed 2025-05-21Rule 403; Rule 901(a), (b)

We agree with the trial court that the probative value of Vashuan’s bloody clothing was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this clothing into evidence at trial. ... Sergeant Lassiter, having been the person who examined the phone and performed its data extraction, sufficiently showed that he had “knowledge that [the] matter is what it is claimed to be” and therefore properly authenticated the evidence before the trial court admitted it.

Rule 901 allows surveillance video to be authenticated through testimony establishing how the footage was retrieved, preserved, and confirmed unaltered.

State v. Brown · filed 2025-08-20Rule 901(a)

First, the witness testimony of McFadyen and Turner lays a proper foundation for the video’s admission into evidence. McFadyen provided a description of the equipment used at the car wash, detailed how he retrieved the footage, accounted for its chain of custody, and verified that it had not been altered.

Rule 901(a) permits evidence to be admitted when testimony supports a finding that the item is what its proponent claims, even if the chain of custody has weak links.

State v. Waters · filed 2026-03-18Rule 901(a)

North Carolina Rule of Evidence 901(a) states, “[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (2025). ... Based on the chain of custody evidence presented by Officer Norris’ testimony and written statement, as well as Sergeant Moses’ identification of State’s Exhibit 3D as being the same as what she collected on the day of the incident, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.

Rule 901 permits a video to be authenticated through a knowledgeable witness’s identification of distinctive characteristics; evidence about the recording device or process is not required.

State v. Leggett · filed 2026-01-07Rule 901(a), (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(9)

However, although a video can be authenticated via evidence regarding its recording device and recording process producing an accurate result, and the State did not produce such evidence here, the production of such evidence is not the only avenue for authentication of a video.

Rule 901(a) requires evidence sufficient to show that a video is what its proponent claims it is; testimony about the recording process can establish its reliability.

State v. Butler · filed 2026-03-18Rule 901(a)

Under Rule 901(a) of our Rules of Evidence, evidence must be authenticated by showing “that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a). ... That testimony along with her testimony that the system was working at the time, like that in Snead and Fleming, was sufficient to support a finding the recording process was reliable.

Rules 802 and 901 support excluding a doctor's letters when they are hearsay and lack a foundation for authentication.

IN RE MLB · filed 2004-12-07Rules 802 and 901

Moreover, we conclude that the trial court properly declined to accept letters allegedly prepared by respondent's doctor where no foundation for the letters had been provided and the letters were hearsay. See N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 802 (2003) (providing that hearsay is generally inadmissible); N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 901 (2003) (requiring that documentary evidence be authenticated or identified).

Rule 105’s requirement to request a limiting instruction does not bar review of the admission of PTSD testimony as substantive evidence when that use was permitted under the law at the time of trial.

State v. Jones · filed 1992-03-03Rule 105

That the defendant did not request a limiting instruction as required by N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 105 (1988) does not preclude our review of the trial court’s error.

Rule 105 requires a party seeking a limiting instruction for evidence admissible for some purposes to state the grounds and request the instruction.

State v. Short · filed 1988-07-28Rule 105

When evidence is competent for one purpose, but not for all purposes, the objecting party cannot rely on a general objection. ... He must state the grounds and ask for any desired limiting instructions. ... Consequently, the overruling of Short’s general objection without an appropriate limiting instruction was not error.

Rule 105 requires a proper limiting instruction on request, but the court need only give a correct requested instruction in substance.

State v. Bostic · filed 1995-12-19Rule 105

We conclude that the instruction given by the trial court here was a proper limiting instruction pursuant to Rule 105 and adequately informed the jury not to consider the Rule 404(b) evidence to show that defendant “acted in conformity therewith” on the occasion when the victim died.

Rule 404(b) evidence may be identified in a limiting instruction that tells jurors to consider it only for its admitted purpose if they believe it.

State v. Junious · filed 2006-12-19Rule 404(b)

Further, contrary to defendant's argument, the challenged instruction did not emphasize the State's evidence, but appropriately informed the jury that if the evidence was believed, it could only be considered for the limited purpose for which it was received.

Rule 105 requires the court, upon request, to instruct the jury to consider evidence only for its admissible purpose.

State v. Watts · filed 2017-08-18Rule 105

Our General Statutes provide that “[w]hen evidence which is admissible . . . for one purpose but not admissible . . . for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 105 (2015) (emphasis added). ... Accordingly, because defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to give the requested limiting instruction, we affirm, as modified herein, the opinion of the Court of Appeals that reversed defendant’s convictions and remanded the matter to the trial court for a new trial.

Rule 105 requires a limiting instruction for evidence admitted for a limited purpose only when a party requests one.

State v. Plotz · filed 2024-08-20Rule 105

Here, Defendant failed to request a limiting instruction. Defendant did not at trial and does not on appeal challenge the admissibility of the evidence of his conduct. The trial court did not err by failing to give a limiting instruction when no instruction was requested.

Rule 403 requires courts assessing photographs for unfair prejudice to consider their probative value and how they were presented, rather than their number alone.

State v. Phipps · filed 1992-06-25Rule 403

The number of photographs alone is an insufficient measure of their capacity to prejudice and inflame the jury; instead, the court looks to their probative value and the circumstances of their introduction into evidence.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of testimony about DNA testing outside a witness’s expertise when it would only confuse the jury.

State v. McNeil · filed 1990-07-03Rule 403

The court ruled that testimony elicited on voir dire regarding DNA was inadmissible pursuant to G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403 because it would only tend to confuse the jury. We agree.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.

State v. McInnis · filed 1991-03-19Rule 403

Assuming, arguendo, that the hospital records and birth certificate were relevant and admissible for the purposes stated by defendant, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403, because the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.

Rule 403 permits a court to exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice.

RAYMOND U v. Duke University · filed 1988-09-06Rule 403

We hold the trial court properly exercised its discretion under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 403, in excluding the testimony because its probative value was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 403 leaves exclusion of evidence under its weighing test to the trial court’s sound discretion.

State v. McLaughlin · filed 1988-09-07Rule 403

We note initially that the exclusion of evidence under the Rule 403 weighing test is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.

Rule 403 excludes relevant evidence only when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.

State v. Allen · filed 1988-10-06Rule 403

We agree with Judge Becton that the test of the admissibility is as set forth in N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403. If the evidence is relevant it will be excluded only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury.

Rule 403 requires courts to weigh the illustrative value of photographs against their potential for unfair prejudice; admitting repetitive photographs that add no probative value can be error.

State v. Hennis · filed 1988-10-06Rule 403

Finally, critical to the trial court's inquiry into the admissibility of a photograph is the determination that it does not unduly reiterate illustrative evidence already presented. ... We hold that under the facts of this case, permitting the photographs with redundant content to be admitted into evidence and to be twice published to the jury was error.

Rule 403 excludes evidence of a defendant’s prior misconduct when its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, even if offered for a permissible purpose.

State v. Scarborough · filed 1988-12-30Rule 403

We conclude that even if the purpose for which the State introduced the testimony was a permissible one, the probative value of that testimony was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Therefore, we reverse the judgment entered below and order a new trial.

Rule 403 gives the trial court discretion to admit relevant evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Meekins · filed 1990-06-13Rule 403

We must now consider whether the probative value of this evidence regarding the pending rape charge was “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (1988). Whether to exclude evidence under this rule is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. ... The trial court here did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of which defendant complains.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to admit gruesome photographs when their illustrative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Robinson · filed 1990-08-29Rule 403

While some of the photographic evidence at issue here is gruesome, there is no suggestion the slide projections were done unfairly, there was no needless repetition of photographs and the presentation of each photograph or slide was accompanied by competent testimony of witnesses, which the photographic evidence illustrated. ... Considering all the circumstances pertaining to the photographic evidence, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the photographic evidence to be used as it was.

Rule 403 leaves exclusion for unfair prejudice to the trial court’s discretion when that prejudice substantially outweighs the evidence’s probative value.

State v. Lopez · filed 1990-12-18Rule 403

Whether to exclude evidence on the basis that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. ... We find no abuse of discretion here. The evidence was relevant to establish the nature and duration of the relationship between defendant and Mr. Waller, and the probability that defendant would confide in him.

Rule 403 permits admission of similar, recent prior-act evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. White · filed 1991-02-19Rule 403

The question of whether evidence is to be excluded under Rule 403 is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. ... Therefore, the evidence was properly admitted under Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits a judge to exclude relevant evidence when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value; a refusal to exclude warrants a new trial only if the ruling was manifestly unsupported by reason.

State v. Cotton · filed 1991-09-05Rule 403

A new trial will be ordered for an abuse of discretion in not excluding testimony pursuant to Rule 403 only upon a showing that the "ruling was manifestly unsupported by reason and could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." ... We cannot say that under this test it was error for the court not to exclude this testimony. The defendant elicited testimony that he was a good employee. The court allowed the State to elicit testimony to rebut this evidence. We cannot hold this was not the result of a reasoned decision.

Rule 403 requires exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Jones · filed 1991-10-15Rule 403

We must decide whether the prejudicial effect of the testimony at issue is “undue” or substantially outweighs its probative value so as to require exclusion. ... We find that this evidence was properly admitted.

Rule 403 allows a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; the decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

State v. Billings · filed 1991-11-05Rule 403

More importantly, whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose ruling may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. ... For all these reasons, we hold the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to exclude the tapes.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to admit an unaltered autopsy photograph when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice.

State v. Butler · filed 1992-04-22Rule 403

The trial court acted within its sound discretion in ruling, under Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, that the probative value of the. unaltered photograph was not substantially outweighed by any prejudice.

Rule 403 permits evidence of a victim’s pregnancy when it is relevant to an unavoidable-accident defense and does not invite a decision on an improper basis.

State v. Moore · filed 1992-09-15Rule 403

The trial court determined that evidence of the victim’s pregnancy was relevant to the defense of Unavoidable accident and misadventure, since a pregnant woman near term is not able to move as quickly or agilely as a woman who is not pregnant. We find no error in that ruling. Furthermore, we do not find an abuse of discretion in the admission of the evidence. We do not believe evidence of pregnancy is of such an inflammatory nature as to cause the jury to make its decision on an improper basis.

Rule 403 permits evidence of a closely similar offense when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Yelverton · filed 1993-09-10Rule 403

Defendant does not contest the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), but argues “its probative value [was] substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” N.C.G;S. § 8C-1, Rule 403. We disagree.

Rule 403 allows relevant autopsy photographs when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, even if they are gruesome.

State v. Rose · filed 1994-01-28Rule 403

The trial court considered a total of nine photographs and, pursuant to Rule 403, sustained defendant’s objection to two of them and admitted the other seven. ... While their gruesome nature may have affected the jury, we do not believe that their effect was more prejudicial than probative. Wé conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude these photographs.

Rule 403 allows relevant evidence to be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Browning v. Carolina Power & Light Co. · filed 1994-04-05Rule 403

In applying this well-settled litany to the facts at bar, we find not only that the evidence has very little probative value but also that any probative value that the evidence may have is clearly exceeded by the proscriptions of Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits photographs of a homicide victim, even if gruesome, when they illustrate witness testimony and are not excessive in number.

State v. McCollum · filed 1993-07-30Rule 403

Since the photographs were not excessive in number and were used for the purpose of illustrating the testimony of Dr. Radisch and Agent Allen, the trial court did not err in admitting the photographs into evidence.

Rule 403 allows evidence of an escape and related threats when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. McDougald · filed 1994-06-17Rule 403

Further, the trial court did not err in concluding that the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by any of the considerations set forth in Rule 403. As explained above, the evidence of the defendant’s escape was highly probative in that it tended to show the defendant’s consciousness of his guilt.

Rule 403 allows relevant evidence of similar crimes when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Ingle · filed 1994-07-29Rule 403

Testimony concerning the Willis murders, committed under remarkably similar circumstances, had substantial probative value of defendant’s criminality arid guilt in the Davis murders. The record does not suggest that the prosecution presented evidence in an inflammatory manner or in a manner designed to inflame the passions of the jury. We hold that the trial court properly admitted evidence of the Willis murders; accordingly, defendant’s assignment of error on these grounds is overruled.

Rule 403 permits evidence of a defendant’s threats against a witness when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Mason · filed 1994-07-29Rule 403

Being relevant, it remained for the trial court to make a determination, pursuant to Rule 403, whether its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. ... Defendant has shown no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in the admission of this testimony; accordingly, his assignment of error on these grounds is overruled.

Rule 403 leaves the exclusion of evidence for unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury to the trial court’s discretion, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

State v. Ward · filed 1994-11-03Rule 403

In light of the clear relevance of the telescope, as discussed above, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to exclude the evidence pursuant to the Rule 403 balancing test.

Rule 705 permits inquiry into the facts underlying an expert’s opinion, subject to Rule 403’s limit on unfairly prejudicial evidence.

State v. Coffey · filed 1994-06-17Rules 403, 705

We find the probative value of defendant's convictions in 1986 to be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice when those convictions are introduced by the State solely to demonstrate the bases of the experts' opinions. The convictions in 1986 were therefore not admissible under the provisions of Rule 705 permitting inquiry into the basis of an expert's opinion.

Rule 403 permits admission of autopsy photographs when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.

State v. Fisher · filed 1994-07-29Rule 403

After examining the photographs, we agree with the trial court that their probative value was not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude them.

Rule 403 gives the trial court discretion to admit photographs that illustrate material facts when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or needless repetition.

State v. Gray · filed 1994-10-06Rule 403

Whether photographic evidence is admissible under Rule 403 is within the sound discretion of the trial court. ... We find no abuse of discretion in the admission of the photographs in the case at bar.

Rule 403 gives the trial judge discretion to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.

Raintree Homeowners Ass'n v. Bleimann · filed 1994-10-18Rule 403

Plaintiff’s objection to the admission of photographs was essentially based on Rule 403. ... Having reviewed the testimony of Mr. Stacey, Ms. Wollman, and Mr. Auten and having observed the photographs, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs of defendants’ home for the purpose of illustrating their testimony.

Rule 403 leaves exclusion of relevant evidence to the trial court’s discretion; testimony about an earlier mental condition may be admitted when it is not too remote to confuse or mislead the jury.

Caudill v. Smith · filed 1994-11-15Rule 403

We note that whether to exclude relevant evidence under Rule 403 is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court. ... This testimony was not too remote to justify an inference that the same condition existed on 5 November 1990, nor was it so remote as to confuse or mislead the jury.

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

State v. Huggins · filed 1994-12-09Rule 403

While the photographs may have been prejudicial to the defendant, they were not unfairly so.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Kelly · filed 1995-05-02Rule 403

“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (1992). Rule 403 requires balancing the proffered evidence’s probative value against its prejudicial effect. ... In this case, the minimal probative value of the evidence is clearly outweighed by its prejudicial impact. It should have been excluded.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to admit relevant bloody clothing when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Knight · filed 1995-07-28Rule 403

Pursuant to Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” to a defendant. ... We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this clothing into evidence at trial.

Rule 403 gives the trial court discretion to exclude evidence for unfair prejudice, confusion, or risk of misleading the jury; its ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

McNamara v. Wilmington Mall Realty Corp. · filed 1996-02-06Rule 403

Defendant has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the contested evidence or that defendant was prejudiced by its admission.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of an insurer’s claim valuations in a personal injury action when admitting them would unduly prejudice the defense.

Braddy v. Nationwide Mutual Liability Insurance · filed 1996-05-21Rule 403

The decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 403 is in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. ... In the present personal injury action, we believe admitting claim estimates prepared by Nationwide, an unnamed defendant insurer, would unduly prejudice the defense.

Rule 403 leaves exclusion of photographic evidence to the trial court's discretion when its probative value is weighed against unfair prejudice.

State v. Brewington · filed 1996-06-13Rule 403

The exclusion of photographic evidence under Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence is generally left to the discretion of the trial court. ... In light of the probative value of this videotape, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the jury to view the videotape in real time or in slow motion.

Rule 403 permits evidence of prior acts showing a common plan when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice, taking a limiting instruction into account.

State v. Penland · filed 1996-07-31Rule 403

Nor did the admission of Hopkins’ testimony violate Rule 403. The trial court specifically precluded the prosecutor from eliciting “remote” evidence from Hopkins, and the evidence actually adduced did not simply imply that defendant had a bad character, but tended to prove the existence of a common plan or scheme on his part. In light of the limiting instruction, the probative value of Hopkins’ evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact.

Rule 403 permits a relevant, gruesome videotape to be shown to the jury if it is not used solely to arouse the jury’s passions.

State v. French · filed 1996-03-08Rule 403

A videotape may be played for a jury even if it is gory and gruesome if it is relevant and is not used solely to arouse the passions of the jury. ... We cannot hold the court abused its discretion under Rule 403 in allowing the introduction of this evidence.

Rule 403 permits a trial judge to admit relevant medical evidence that corroborates a rape victim’s testimony and tends to establish penetration.

State v. McKenzie · filed 1996-03-19Rule 403

The decision to exclude evidence pursuant to Rule 403 is within the trial judge’s discretion. ... In the present case, the rape kit and emergency room record were relevant to corroborate the victim’s testimony. Furthermore, such evidence showed trauma to the victim’s vaginal area tending to establish penetration, an essential element of the offense of rape. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting such evidence and allowing it to be published to the jury.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to admit evidence of a defendant’s failure to appear for trial when that evidence can reasonably indicate an attempt to avoid prosecution.

State v. Williamson · filed 1996-04-16Rule 403

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admitting evidence of defendant’s failure to appear for trial. One reasonable view of this evidence is -that defendant, by failing to appear for trial, attempted to avoid prosecution for the offenses charged.

Rule 403 allows a trial court to admit relevant expert testimony about battered child syndrome when doing so is within its discretion.

State v. Elliott · filed 1996-09-06Rule 403

We conclude that Sinai’s testimony was relevant and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 in permitting the State to present this evidence to the jury.

Rule 403 allows a trial court to admit photographs that illustrate testimony when they are not unfairly prejudicial.

State v. Flippen · filed 1996-11-08Rule 403

What represents an excessive number of photographs and whether the photographic evidence is more probative than prejudicial are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court. ... The photographs and slides about which defendant complains were neither repetitious nor unfairly prejudicial.

Rule 403 leaves the exclusion of relevant evidence for unfair prejudice to the trial court’s discretion.

State v. Moody · filed 1997-03-07Rule 403

While the letters expressed heartfelt emotion on the part of the victim, we find nothing in the instant case to suggest that the jury’s decision to recommend a sentence of death was based on any unfair prejudice that may have been created by these letters. “In general, the exclusion of evidence under the balancing test of Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence is within the trial court’s sound discretion.” ... We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the three letters.

Rule 403 permits relevant rebuttal evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice or confusion.

State v. Cagle · filed 1997-07-24Rule 403

We conclude that the evidence about Cagle’s killing of the cat was relevant to explain or rebut the evidence elicited by defendant through cross-examination of the State’s witnesses. The court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice or confusion of the issues.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

State v. Collins · filed 1996-12-06Rule 403

Applying Rule 403 to this case, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling. Defendant was not prevented from presenting to the jury the relevant facts about DeGraffenreidt’s age, height, weight, appearance, and size compared with defendant’s physical attributes. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that physical exhibition of DeGraffenreidt to the jury would have been cumulative and a needless waste of time.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.

State v. Julian · filed 1997-03-07Rule 403

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Webster’s testimony about rumors she had heard at her place of employment regarding the victim. The trial court could find, in its discretion, that this evidence was being offered to unfairly prejudice the State, to confuse the issues, and to mislead the jury by inflaming the jury’s passions against the victim by implying that she was involved in an interracial relationship and that she was a drug user.

Rule 403 permits a court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or wasted time.

Jones (Griffin) v. Rochelle · filed 1997-01-07Rule 403

The trial court ruled admitting this evidence would cause undue prejudice, create an undue consumption of time, and confuse the jury. ... We find no abuse of this discretion in this case.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, delay, or confusion of the issues.

State v. MacOn · filed 1997-05-09Rule 403

Since defendant was not relying upon self-defense or other legal provocation as a defense, the trial court reasonably could have concluded that the admission of the proffered evidence would have substantially prejudiced the State and would have served only to delay the proceedings, to inflame the jury, or to confuse the issues. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence, and we reject this assignment of error.

Rule 403 permits relevant photographs when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Creech · filed 1998-02-17Rule 403

Since evidence favorable to the State is typically prejudicial to a defendant, the balancing test under Rule 403 involves a determination of whether that prejudice is unfair to a defendant. ... We find that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant’s case.

Rule 403 permits evidence that gives context to the charged conduct when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Ferebee · filed 1998-03-03Rule 403

As to the prejudice of the evidence, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (1992), “evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” ... In this case, we do not discern an arbitrary or unreasoned decision, as the evidence was relevant to enlighten the jury to the background between the defendant and the victim and to allow them to place into context the reason Ferebee was warned to stay away. We hold that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Faison · filed 1998-03-03Rule 403

Defendant has failed to show that the probative value of the evidence of his prior convictions was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The trial court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, by the admission of the evidence or by its instructions to the jury.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

State v. Warren · filed 1998-05-08Rule 403

Whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. ... Having reviewed the photographs and determined that they were relevant and probative, that they assisted in illustrating the testimony of the police officer and pathologist, and that they could contribute to the finding of premeditation and deliberation, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. McDonald · filed 1998-07-21Rule 403

In light of the court’s limiting instruction, we cannot find that the trial court’s decision permitting the State to introduce evidence of the earlier breaking and entering was an unreasoned one.

Rule 403 leaves the exclusion of relevant evidence for unfair prejudice to the trial court’s discretion, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

State v. Trull · filed 1998-12-31Rule 403

Whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. ... Having viewed the photographs and determined that they were relevant and probative and that they assisted in illustrating the testimony of the forensic entomologist, SBI agent, and forensic pathologist, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs.

Rule 403 leaves exclusion to the trial court’s discretion even when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; that imbalance alone does not establish an abuse of discretion.

State v. Jordan · filed 1998-02-03Rule 403

Rule 403 says that “evidence may be excluded,” (emphasis added) not that the evidence must be excluded. As Womble points out, once the prerequisite of prejudice outweighing probative value is present, the rule places the decision on whether to exclude within the discretion of the trial court.

Rule 403 permits relevant evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Reaves · filed 1999-04-06Rule 403

We find no abuse of discretion. This evidence was relevant to the issue of the State’s inability to present shell casings from the weapon allegedly used by defendant. Defendant’s counsel raised this matter in his opening argument, and, having invited the State’s response, cannot now claim he was improperly prejudiced by the State’s exhibition of the weapons to the jury.

Rule 403 permits admission of probative blood-alcohol test results when their prejudicial effect is not unfair and explanatory testimony reduces the risk of jury confusion.

State v. Mac Cardwell · filed 1999-06-15Rule 403

The evidence obtained and/or derived from the Analyzer, although obviously prejudicial to Defendant, is not unfairly prejudicial. The trial court determined that the Analyzer results were reliable in this case; the Analyzer test results lack emotional content; and both sides were allowed to present explanatory expert testimony to reduce the risk of misleading the jury. It follows that a decision based on these results would not have been on any improper basis. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of Defendant’s Analyzer results was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or jury confusion.

Rule 403 permits admission of relevant evidence when the trial court’s balancing decision has a reasonable basis, including its use of limiting instructions.

Leftwich v. Gaines · filed 1999-08-17Rule 403

This evidence was relevant to the claim for negligent supervision, and the trial court thrice gave a limiting instruction as to the applicability of the Mayor’s statements. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements.

Rule 403 allows relevant evidence to be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, a balance left to the trial court’s discretion.

State v. Hedgepeth · filed 1999-08-20Rule 403

We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing evidence of defendant’s prior violent acts, and we therefore reject defendant’s contention that the probative value of the evidence of his prior violent acts was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

Rule 403 requires a trial court to weigh the probative value of photographs against the danger of unfair prejudice before admitting them.

State v. Morganherring · filed 1999-08-20Rule 403

In determining whether to admit photographic evidence, the trial court must weigh the probative value of the photographs against the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant. State v. Goode, 350 N.C. 247, 258, 512 S.E.2d 414, 421 (1999); N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (1992).

Rule 403 requires the trial court to weigh photographs’ probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice; gruesome photographs may be admitted when they illustrate testimony and are not used excessively solely to inflame the jury.

State v. Goode · filed 1999-04-09Rule 403

Whether to admit photographic evidence requires the trial court to weigh the probative value of the photographs against the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (1992); State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 372 S.E.2d 523 (1988). ... The record does not support that these photographs were used excessively and solely to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury against defendant.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Allen v. Roberts Const. Co., Inc. · filed 2000-07-05Rule 403

The record does not show Plaintiffs’ use of the photographs was so “expansive” as to be unfairly prejudicial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice to Defendants.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to admit evidence of a defendant’s prior felony conviction despite an offered stipulation when the danger of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value.

State v. Jackson · filed 2000-08-29Rule 403

The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in its ruling and defendant’s assertion of error, much less “plain error,” is unavailing.

Rule 403 allows a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.

State v. Grooms · filed 2000-12-21Rule 403

Defendant also argues that the prejudicial effect of this evidence substantially outweighed its probative impact and that the trial court should have excluded it under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403. ... Thus, we cannot conclude that there was unfair prejudice to defendant substantially outweighing the probative value of this evidence, such that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing its admission.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues or unfair prejudice.

State v. Campbell · filed 2001-02-06Rule 403

The record indicates that the trial court made a meticulous effort to perform the balancing test pursuant to Rule 403 and did not abuse his discretion in doing so.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; the exclusion is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

State v. Belfield · filed 2001-06-19Rule 403

Instead, we agree with the State that the card’s “probative value [wa]s lost in [its] lurid nature .. . .” Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to admit the card into evidence.

Rule 403 permits a trial judge to exclude testimony that duplicates evidence already presented.

State v. Taylor · filed 2001-08-17Rule 403

Indeed, the judge was well within his discretion under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403 to exclude this testimony as cumulative.

Rule 403 permits evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; evidence may be admitted to rehabilitate a witness after the defendant opens the door.

State v. Fleming · filed 2001-12-28Rule 403

The State correctly points out that the test is whether “[the evidence’s] probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (1999). ... After careful review of the record below, we conclude the evidence was properly admitted because defendant “opened the door,” and the State was permitted to rehabilitate Detective Beasley, who was attacked by defense counsel.

Rule 403 allows a court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Prevatte · filed 2002-10-04Rule 403

Nonetheless, a trial court should exclude relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2001). ... Accordingly, we find any prejudice from the admission of the testimony in issue was not significant enough to warrant the testimony’s suppression.

Rule 403 requires courts to weigh photographs’ probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice when deciding whether to admit them.

State v. Haselden · filed 2003-03-28Rule 403

We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of the photographs outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Hummer v. Pulley, Watson, King & Lischer, P.A. · filed 2003-04-01Rule 403

The probative value of this testimony on the issues of emotional distress and mental anguish was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 403 permits admission of relevant evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice or misleading the jury.

State v. Sims · filed 2003-11-18Rule 403

We find that in the present case the probative value of the rag and the scientific analysis of the rag was not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice or misleading the jury. The trial court did not err in exercising its discretion in admitting the rag and the scientific analysis of the rag, which indicated the presence of defendant's semen.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.

State v. Gantt · filed 2003-11-18Rule 403

Rule 403 restricts the admission of relevant evidence by stating that “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2001). ... Defendant, however, has not met his burden of showing prejudice, either under Rule 403 or under the standard for plain error.

Rule 403 requires the court to weigh the probative value of prior sexual act evidence against its prejudicial effect, taking the time between acts into account.

State v. Dyson · filed 2004-08-03Rule 403

Because the record clearly indicates the trial court applied the appropriate balancing test of N.C, Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 in deciding whether to admit Officer Motter’s testimony, and because the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence of defendant’s prior sexual act.

Rule 403 generally permits relevant evidence unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or another listed concern; exclusion is within the trial court’s discretion.

State v. Garcia · filed 2004-06-25Rule 403

Pursuant to Rules of Evidence 402 and 403, relevant evidence is generally admissible unless “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2003). ... We find no such arbitrary action in this case. Accordingly, defendant’s threat was admissible at trial.

Rules 401 and 403 allow admission of a video that corroborates a witness's testimony when its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

State v. Scarlett · filed 2004-07-20Rules 401 and 403

On these facts, we conclude that the video was relevant under Rule 401, and any prejudicial effect from its admission was outweighed by its probative value under Rule 403, because it corroborated A.F.'s testimony that defendant had played such a video during the incident giving rise to the charges against defendant.

Rule 403 leaves the exclusion of evidence for prejudice to the trial court’s discretion, subject to reversal when the decision is manifestly unsupported by reason.

State v. Quinn · filed 2004-11-02Rule 403

The exclusion of evidence under this rule is a matter within the trial court’s discretion and will only be reversed on appeal with a showing that its decision was manifestly unsupported by reason. ... The decision to allow the testimony is not unsupported by reason and this argument is overruled.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant photographs when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs their probative value; the decision to admit them is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

State v. Bethea · filed 2004-12-07Rule 403

Having determined above that the two photographs were probative, admissible, and not used excessively or repetitiously to arouse the passions of the jury, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the two photographs’ probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 403 permits photographs that corroborate testimony about sexual conduct when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Oakley · filed 2004-12-07Rule 403

Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling that the probative value of the photographs outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant by introduction of such evidence.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or another listed concern.

State v. Ayscue · filed 2005-04-05Rule 403

“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2003). ... In the instant case, the record does not reflect that the probative value of the videotape was outweighed by any undue prejudice.

Rule 403 permits a court to exclude relevant evidence offered as the basis for an expert opinion when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.

State v. Smith · filed 2005-02-04Rule 403

We conclude that the trial court properly applied Rule 403 to find that although relevant, the danger of the statements prejudicing, confusing, or misleading the jury outweighed the statements' probative value.

Rule 403 permits autopsy photographs that illustrate a victim’s wounds when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Snider · filed 2005-03-01Rule 403

We hold that the trial court’s ruling admitting the enlarged photographs that were projected onto a screen was proper for the purpose of illustrating the extent of Seagle’s wounds. Thus, the probative value of the photographs outweighs any potential unfair prejudice due to the nature of the photographs.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Campbell · filed 2005-08-19Rule 403

The trial court acted within its discretion in ruling that defendant could not inquire of Ms. McAllister about the sexual paraphernalia in that “its probative value [was] substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of a property valuation opinion when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of confusion or unfair prejudice.

City of Charlotte v. Ertel · filed 2005-05-17Rule 403

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. ... Therefore, in light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Norman’s opinion regarding the fair market value of appellants’ property.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value; ordinary prejudice to a defendant is insufficient.

State v. Locklear · filed 2005-11-15Rule 403

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice[.]” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403. Since all evidence against a defendant is necessarily prejudicial, evidence may only be excluded when it is unfairly prejudicial. ... Again, defendant fails to show that the jury probably would have reached a different result had the evidence of prior bad acts not been admitted. Accordingly, we find no plain error.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to admit testimony describing photographs when the testimony adds little to evidence the jury has already heard.

State v. Pendleton · filed 2005-12-20Rule 403

This testimony, describing her mother and defendant having sex, was not significantly different than C.’s previous testimony about the sexual relationship between her mother and defendant. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion by allowing C. to testify similarly about the photographs.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

State v. Durham · filed 2006-02-21Rule 403

Rulings under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 403 are discretionary, and a trial court’s decision on motions made pursuant to Rule 403 are binding on appeal, unless the dissatisfied party shows that the trial court abused its discretion. ... In light of this explanation, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in excluding Exhibit 18.

Rule 403 permits a court to exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the likelihood of confusing the issues or misleading the jury.

State v. Gladden · filed 2006-02-21Rule 403

After carefully considering the inconsistencies between the time of the events Ms. Murray testified to and the time of the robbery, and also the inconsistencies as to the location of the two men when she observed them, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling the evidence inadmissible under Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits evidence of firearm possession when its probative value in showing motive is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Grant · filed 2006-08-01Rule 403

Furthermore, because defendant's possession of the SKS assault rifle was highly probative of defendant's motive for shooting the victim, we conclude that the probative value of the challenged evidence was not "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice" to defendant.

Rule 403 permits admission of a defendant’s statement about avoiding prison during flight when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Locklear · filed 2006-11-07Rule 403

We hold the trial court’s ruling was the product of a reasoned decision in weighing the probative value of the testimony against its potential prejudicial effect, and accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.

Rule 403 allows a court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Shannon · filed 2007-04-03Rule 403

On this record, the trial court did not err by concluding that the probative value of the photographs was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 403 permits photographs of guns found in a defendant's home when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Lakey · filed 2007-06-05Rule 403

Defendant argues that photographs of guns should have been excluded under Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence (hereinafter "Rule 403"). ... In summary, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of guns, nor did the trial court err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss.

Rule 403 requires a trial court to balance probative value against unfair prejudice; saying that prejudice would “certainly outweigh” probative value can show that it performed the required balancing.

State v. Mabrey · filed 2007-06-19Rule 403

Although the better practice would be to employ the words used in the statute, the trial court’s use of the phrase “certainly outweigh” is sufficiently close to the phrase “substantially outweigh” to make clear that the court conducted the appropriate balancing test mandated by the Rule.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Patterson · filed 2007-08-07Rule 403

Further, it is clear that the probative value of the statements was not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. Therefore, their admission did not violate N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2005) ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.").

Rule 403 permits highly probative evidence of a defendant’s knowledge of a suspended license when a limiting instruction significantly mitigates the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Lloyd · filed 2007-11-06Rule 403

Defendant also contends that even if the evidence was relevant and offered for a permissible purpose under Rule 404(b), it should have been excluded because the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2005). Because the evidence was fundamental to proving that defendant acted with malice, it was clearly highly probative. Additionally, the danger of unfair prejudice was significantly mitigated by the trial court’s limiting instruction. Therefore, on the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that defendant knew that his license was suspended.

Rule 403 leaves the exclusion of relevant evidence for unfair prejudice or confusion to the trial court’s discretion, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Cameron v. Merisel Properties, Inc. · filed 2007-11-06Rule 403

The decision whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403 of the Rules of Evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. ... We conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion to admit the testimony of Cameron’s co-workers.