N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 403 permits photographs illustrating testimony when they are not needlessly cumulative or excessively prejudicial.

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

Based upon all of the photographic evidence presented at defendant’s trial, we hold the photographs of Brown’s frontal injuries were not cumulative or excessive, as other photographs shown were of the crime scene and Brown while he was lying face down in the position in which officers found him.

Rule 403 permits a brief, nonduplicative showing of relevant videos when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Riffe · filed 2008-06-17Rule 403

The gravamen of a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-190.17A is the image of a minor or minors engaging in sexual activity; accordingly, a non-duplicative, brief presentation of such evidence is appropriate as it serves as the basis for the charges. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in admission of the disputed evidence, and defendant’s arguments, to the contrary are rejected.

Rule 403 permits a trial judge to admit relevant evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

State v. Garris · filed 2008-07-15Rule 403

After reviewing the record, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the probative value of the testimony outweighed the possibility of unfair prejudice to defendant.

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

State v. Rankin · filed 2008-07-15Rule 403

The question, then, is whether the prejudicial effect of this information outweighed its relevance. ... Given the care with which the trial court handled this evidence, and given the fact that defendant cannot show that, without this evidence, a different result would likely have been reached, this assignment of error is overruled.

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

State v. Tadeja · filed 2008-08-05Rule 403

We find no error with the trial court’s decision as this statement is relevant to show why Jane waited to disclose defendant’s actions towards her, and the probative value of the statements is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 403 balancing is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and an unpreserved challenge to that balancing is not reviewed for plain error.

State v. Cunningham · filed 2008-02-19Rule 403

The balancing test of Rule 403 is reviewed by this court for abuse of discretion, and we do not apply plain error “to issues which fall within the realm of the trial court’s discretion.”

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or confusion; a long lapse of time can reduce probative value and increase those risks.

Boileau v. Seagrave · filed 2008-10-21Rule 403

Furthermore, even if the evidence of Defendant's prior conduct contains sufficient similarities to the present conduct and, thus, is probative of Defendant's conduct in this case, the passage of approximately 30 years between Defendant's prior acts and the acts charged diminishes the probative value of the evidence and enhances the tendency to cause unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. Accordingly, the trial court's exclusion of the Boyer evidence on grounds that "the potential confusion and prejudicial value of the evidence outweighs the probative value" is not manifestly unsupported by reason. We thus conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; admission is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Troutman v. Troutman · filed 2008-10-21Rule 403

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 (2007). ... Because defendant cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion, this assignment of error is overruled.

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

State v. Lawson · filed 2008-12-16Rule 403

Rule 403 of this State’s Rules of Evidence excludes relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2007). ... Due to the trial court’s explanation that this evidence demonstrated motive as well as the extensive consideration that it gave each exhibit, we cannot hold that the trial court’s ruling was not the result of a reasoned decision.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant photographs when their probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; admitting them is harmless if they do not prejudice the defendant.

State v. Beavers · filed 2009-05-05Rule 403

The decision of whether to admit photographs as illustrative evidence under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 is within the sound discretion of the trial court. ... Even assuming arguendo it was error to admit these photographs, given the overwhelming evidence against Defendant, we cannot hold that these photographs were unduly prejudicial.

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

State v. MARENGO · filed 2009-08-18Rule 403

Mr. Joe's testimony was probative of important aspects of the State's case, and the value of this testimony to the State's case outweighed any prejudicial effect on defendant.

Rule 403 permits a court to exclude rebuttal testimony when it would needlessly repeat evidence and waste time.

Lail Ex Rel. Lail v. Bowman Gray School · filed 2009-04-21Rule 403

The trial court excluded Dr. Karotkin’s testimony about the accuracy of the medical records as needlessly cumulative and time-wasting. ... This assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 403 excludes evidence of a prior drug transaction when its probative value depends on the substance being cocaine and the substance was identified only by sight.

State v. Galindo · filed 2010-02-16Rule 403

We must now consider whether the admission of that identification violated Rule 403, and if it did, whether that violation constitutes prejudicial error. ... The probative value of the 8 November transaction depends entirely on the substance involved being, in fact, cocaine. Thus, the trial court violated the rule enunciated in Scott, and applied in Ward, by allowing testimony of a visual identification of the substance involved in the 8 November transaction.

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

State v. McCravey · filed 2010-05-04Rule 403

Defendant makes no argument as to how the trial court abused its discretion in making its ruling based on Rule 403. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling on exclusion of evidence that Tiffany had a positive drug test within the prior two years.

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

State v. Waring · filed 2010-11-05Rule 403

We have carefully reviewed the record and the photographs and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photographs. They were relevant and probative of material facts in this case. The photos were not unnecessarily repetitive, were not unduly gruesome or inflammatory, and illustrated both Dr. Gardner’s testimony pertaining to the autopsy and corroborating statements made by defendant to the investigators.

Rule 403 permits exclusion when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; prejudice alone is insufficient.

State v. Walters · filed 2011-01-04Rule 403

While this statement may be prejudicial to defendant’s case, mere prejudice is not the determining factor in the Rule 403 balancing test. Rather, the trial judge must determine whether the unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of evidence of a physician’s remote misconduct when its risk of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury substantially outweighs its probative value.

Davis v. Rudisill · filed 2011-02-15Rule 403

Assuming that this evidence was probative for the reasons argued by plaintiff, we limit our review to determining whether the evidence was unduly prejudicial under Rule 403, as the trial court determined. ... We agree with the trial court’s reasoning and find no abuse of discretion in the granting of defendants’ motion in limine.

A defendant challenging admission of a Spanish-language recording under Rule 403 must show an abuse of discretion and actual prejudice.

State v. Gomez · filed 2011-02-15Rule 403

As to defendant’s actual issue on appeal, the admissibility of the recording, defendant fails to show any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in allowing the recording into evidence and any actual prejudice that resulted from the recording being played for the jury.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of evidence about a waived contributory negligence defense when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury.

Rabon v. Hopkins · filed 2010-12-07Rule 403

Further, assuming arguendo it was in any way relevant, evidence of Plaintiff’s conduct was appropriately excluded by the trial court because any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues under Rule of Evidence 403.

A Rule 403 challenge to admitted evidence does not establish plain error when the defendant fails to show prejudice from its admission.

State v. Speight · filed 2011-06-21Rule 403

Defendant further contends that the trial court’s admission of Corporal Clayton’s testimony amounted to plain error on the basis that it was substantially more prejudicial than probative in violation of our Rules of Evidence, Rule 403. However, as stated in I, supra, defendant has failed to establish that the admission of his statement to police, that he was “a B and E guy” was prejudicial. Therefore, such cannot amount to plain error.

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

State v. Howard · filed 2011-09-06Rule 403

This evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of the Daddy Rabbit’s break-in, including the bloody clothing, under Rule 403.

Rule 403 does not require excluding a photograph and related testimony showing gang rank when their prejudicial effect is insufficient to outweigh their relevance.

State v. Privette · filed 2012-02-07Rule 403

Moreover, for the reasons set forth with respect to the “hierarchy and rank” evidence, we conclude that the prejudicial effect of this photograph and related testimony was not so great as to compel its exclusion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, ... Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits prior inconsistent statements to be used for impeachment when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or the risk of misleading the jury.

State v. Avent · filed 2012-08-07Rule 403

Due to the instruction provided by the trial court which specifically instructed the jury not to consider Mr. Hicks’ or Mr. Porter’s prior inconsistent statements substantively but only for purposes of determining their credibility, defendant has not demonstrated that the “probative value [of the statements was] ... substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury[.]”

Rule 403 leaves the decision to exclude evidence of other acts as more prejudicial than probative to the trial court’s discretion.

State v. Graham · filed 2012-10-16Rule 403

There is nothing in the record to suggest that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing this evidence under Rule 403. We therefore find no error.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude expert testimony about repressed memory when its probative value is outweighed by prejudice, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

State v. King · filed 2011-08-02Rule 403

In the instant case, the trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress, excluding expert testimony regarding repressed memory under Rule 403, deeming the probative value of the evidence to be outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The record before us fails to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion.

Rule 702(a) permits a forensic chemist’s testimony when the chemist’s background and established methods provide sufficient evidence of reliability; the laboratory need not be accredited when the chemist testifies at trial.

State v. McDonald · filed 2011-10-04Rule 702(a)

Although the NarTest laboratory is not accredited by ASCLD/LAB or another accrediting organization, defendant has provided no legal authority establishing that such accreditation is required when the forensic chemist who conducted the analysis of the alleged controlled substance testifies at trial.

Rule 702(a) requires a sufficiently reliable method of proof before scientific expert testimony is admitted.

State v. Jones · filed 2011-11-01Rule 702(a)

Rule 702(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides that “[i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the' form of an opinion.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2009). ... In examining the indices of reliability set forth in Howerton, we hold that Mr. Raney’s testimony was inadmissible.

Rule 403 applies to otherwise admissible expert testimony and permits exclusion when its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

State v. King · filed 2012-06-14Rule 403

Nevertheless, like all other relevant evidence, expert testimony must satisfy the requirements of Rule 403 to be admissible.

Rule 702 permits a trial court to exclude expert testimony that would assess a witness’s credibility or address inconsistencies the jury can evaluate itself.

State v. Martin · filed 2012-08-07Rule 702

Here, Turvey’s testimony, offered to discredit the victim’s account of defendant’s action that night, and to comment on the manner in which the criminal investigation was conducted appears to invade the province of the jury. ... Thus, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of defendant’s expert witness.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to limit the needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Wolgin v. Wolgin · filed 2011-12-06Rule 403

Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence states, “[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 (2009). ... Here, the trial court properly exercised its authority to limit the presentation of cumulative evidence.

Rule 403 allows a trial court to admit evidence of other persons’ cards to show intent when its decision reflects reasoned consideration of probative value and possible jury confusion.

State v. Jones · filed 2012-11-20Rule 403

The trial court ultimately admitted evidence of the other cards to show intent. Because the decision to admit evidence of the other cards was not “manifestly unsupported by reason or ... so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision[,]” Theer, 181 N.C. App. at 360, 639 S.E.2d at 662-63 (quotation marks omitted), we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion.

Rule 403 permits relevant evidence of a defendant’s attempted escape when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Nieto · filed 2014-03-04Rule 403

Although the evidence in question clearly cast Defendant in a bad light, its undoubted relevance did not render its admission unduly or unfairly prejudicial.

Rule 403 permits admission of photographs that may suggest a defendant was in jail when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Carpenter · filed 2014-03-04Rule 403

Even to the extent that a juror could have deduced that the pictures were taken in a jail, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value. ... Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant’s objection based on Rule 403 and did not err in admitting the photographs of defendant.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of gang-related testimony when its danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.

State v. Hinton · filed 2013-03-19Rule 403

In addition to being irrelevant, the extensive gang-related testimony carried the danger of unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed its non-existent probative value. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits crime scene and autopsy photographs to illustrate witness testimony when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or needless repetition.

State v. Stewart · filed 2013-12-03Rule 403

Applying the law as provided in Hennis, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs in the present case where all the photographs were introduced to illustrate witness testimony concerning either the crime scene as it existed immediately following the shootings, each victim’s location in the nursing home, or the specific injuries sustained by the victims.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion; an erroneous exclusion does not require reversal without a showing of prejudice.

Green v. Freeman · filed 2014-04-01Rule 403

As a result, we hold that although the trial court erred in excluding Corinna’s deposition under Rule 32 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and under Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, that error was not prejudicial.

Rule 403 permits admission of evidence of a prior act when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; a limiting instruction can reduce that risk.

State v. Thomas · filed 2014-09-16Rule 403

In view of the significant similarities between the two incidents and the limiting instruction delivered by the trial court, we see no basis for concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to exclude the testimony of Mr. Castro and Mr. Freeman concerning the 10 September 2011 robbery pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403.

Rule 403 allows a trial court to admit evidence when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; an appellant challenging that ruling must show an abuse of discretion and material prejudice.

Gregory v. Old Republic Home Prot. Co. · filed 2014-09-16Rule 403

Plaintiff fails in her burden of showing that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the contested evidence was admissible under Rule 403, and that she was materially prejudiced thereby.

Rule 403 limits the amount of other-crime evidence admitted when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues or unfairly prejudicing the defendant.

State v. Hembree · filed 2015-04-10Rule 403

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of an excessive amount of evidence about Saldana, particularly photographic evidence, when the probative value of the sum total of that evidence was substantially outweighed by the risks that it would confuse the issues before the jury, or lead the jury to convict defendant based on evidence of a crime not actually before it.

Rule 403 does not require exclusion of highly probative testimony merely because it is prejudicial when the danger of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value.

State v. Mackey · filed 2015-06-16Rule 403

Smith's testimony is also highly prejudicial to defendant, but we must examine whether that prejudice is necessarily unfair in that it has a tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis. ... In summary, viewing the third jury note in context demonstrates that Smith's testimony did not suggest decision on an improper, emotional basis, and the jury in fact did not make its decision on an improper, emotional basis.

Rule 403 permits evidence when the danger of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value.

State v. Denny · filed 2015-06-16Rule 403

We conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to implicitly determine that the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence. Therefore, the trial court properly admitted the evidence.

Rule 403 allows testimony explaining why a witness retained images of a defendant when it is probative and does not unfairly prejudice the defendant.

State v. Faison · filed 2015-06-16Rule 403

We further find no abuse of the trial court's discretion under Rule 403 in admitting Dunbar's testimony that he retained the images of defendant "for a different thing, a case that we had with [the police]." Inasmuch as Dunbar did not accuse defendant of engaging in any illegal or improper activity in Harris Teeter, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding no unfair prejudice to defendant.

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

State v. Sellers · filed 2015-08-04Rule 403

Nevertheless, Defendant also challenges the evidence under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403, contending that the language "insufficient quantity and/or quality," referring to the DNA sample taken from J.D.E.'s underwear, created an "undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis." ... There is no evidence in the record that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the DNA report and testimony in its entirety.

Rule 403 permits admission of evidence when the trial court reasonably finds that its risk of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value.

State v. Young · filed 2015-08-21Rule 403

In view of the fact that the evidence concerning defendant’s response to the wrongful death and declaratory judgment action had material probative value and the fact that the trial court recognized and made a serious attempt to address the risk of unfair prejudice that would inevitably flow from the admission of that evidence, we cannot conclude ... that the trial court erred in determining that the risk of unfair prejudice resulting from the introduction of the challenged evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value.

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

State v. Thompson · filed 2015-09-15Rule 403

Because the trial court conducted a balancing test under Rule 403 and determined that the probative value of defendant’s Facebook posting outweighed its prejudicial effect, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the State to cross-examine defendant about this posting.

Rule 403 permits relevant medical records to be admitted when their value on causation and damages is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Clarke, ex rel v. Mikhail · filed 2015-11-03Rule 403

Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to show how the admission of this evidence was likely to lead the jury to draw negative inferences about Ms. Bohn or to confuse the issues. No evidence shows the trial court’s review process or decision to admit the prior records into evidence was “manifestly unsupported by reason.”

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

State v. Triplett · filed 2015-08-21Rule 403

Third, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence under a Rule 403 balancing test.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to reassess during trial whether evidence is more probative than prejudicial.

State v. Isley · filed 2017-03-07Rule 403

The trial court was well within its discretion to revisit its preliminary, pretrial ruling on defendant's motion to suppress the text messages and, during the course of trial, determine that the content of the messages was more probative than prejudicial.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or waste of time.

State v. Hart · filed 2017-04-04Rule 403

Given the very low probative value of the evidence defendant sought to introduce regarding Officer Lea's text conversations with the woman, it is clear the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or waste of time.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude evidence of prior malpractice lawsuits based on its prejudicial effect relative to its probative value.

Wilson v. Ashley Women's Ctr., P.A. · filed 2017-05-02Rule 403

Even assuming arguendo that this evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b), it is still within the trial court's discretion to make a ruling on admissibility based on the prejudicial effect of the evidence relative to its probative value. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err by excluding evidence regarding prior lawsuits and claims against Kuney and Dr. Jacob's knowledge of the aforementioned.

Rule 403 permits a court to exclude evidence about a prosecuting witness’s sexual history when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, regardless of whether the Rape Shield law applies.

State v. West · filed 2017-08-15Rule 403

When a trial court properly determines, pursuant to Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, that the probative value of evidence about a prosecuting witness’s sexual history is substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice, the trial court does not err by excluding the evidence, regardless of whether it falls within the scope of the North Carolina Rape Shield law.

Rule 403 calls for excluding photographs when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs their probative value.

State v. Hobson · filed 2018-08-21Rule 403

We therefore agree with defendant that the probative value of the photographs was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and the trial court should have exercised its discretion by excluding the photographs.

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

State v. Chisholm · filed 2018-09-04Rule 403

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the probative value of this challenged evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendant.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues.

State v. McCoy · filed 2017-09-05Rule 403

Even if evidence is relevant, it still "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, 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 (2016). ... Defendant has failed to show the trial court's determination was manifestly unsupported by reason and therefore an abuse of discretion.

Rule 403 requires courts to weigh photographs’ probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice; photographs may be admitted when they corroborate statements, illustrate testimony, and support an inference of premeditation.

State v. Faulk · filed 2017-11-07Rule 403

In making this determination, a trial court must weigh the probative value of the photographs against the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. ... Having reviewed the photographs and determined their relevancy and probative value—that they corroborate Defendant’s statements, illustrate the medical examiner’s testimony, and tend to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation—we cannot conclude that the trial court’s decision was so arbitrary that it could not have been supported by reason.

Rule 403 allows relevant medical studies to be admitted when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or the risk of misleading the jury.

Ingram v. Henderson Cnty. Hosp. Corp. · filed 2018-05-01

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the probative value of the three studies was not “outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits admission of debt letters relevant to financial motive when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Holmes · filed 2018-12-18Rule 403

Additionally, we do not find that the trial court’s Rule 403 determination that the probative value of the letters was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice was manifestly unsupported by reason.

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

State v. Spencer · filed 2019-02-05Rule 403

Further, assuming that the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b), we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony under Rule 403 as the evidence did not "suggest [a] decision on an improper basis[.]"

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; testimony that an officer administered a portable breath test, without disclosing its results, did not show unfair prejudice in light of the other impairment evidence.

State v. Renderos · filed 2019-02-19Rule 403

Presuming, arguendo, Defendant had preserved his objection, Defendant cannot demonstrate unfair prejudice from Officer Matroo's testimony regarding the administration of the PBT. The jury heard the evidence regarding Defendant's erratic driving, red eyes, odor of alcohol, Defendant's admission to drinking the night before, inability to follow instructions during the standardized field sobriety tests, and Defendant's 0.09 blood alcohol concentration from the Intoxilyzer test following his arrest. Officer Matroo did not testify to the results of the PBT nor did Officer Matroo testify that the PBT played any part in the formation of his opinion that Defendant was appreciably impaired.

Rule 403 permits admission of gruesome crime scene and autopsy photographs that illustrate testimony when the trial court considers their content and cumulative effect.

State v. Canady · filed 2019-09-03Rule 403

The photographs allowed into evidence in this case illustrated the testimonies that proved this to the jury, and the photographs were properly allowed into evidence by the trial court.

Rule 403 permits admission of a victim’s skeletal remains when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Enoch · filed 2018-09-18Rule 403

In light of the bones’ relevancy, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Sellars’ skeletal remains into evidence and publishing them to the jury.

Rule 403 does not require exclusion of evidence merely because substantially similar testimony was admitted; the trial court has discretion to weigh whether its presentation is needlessly cumulative.

State v. Latham · filed 2019-02-05Rule 403

However, the introduction of substantially similar testimony does not necessitate exclusion of evidence under Rule 403. ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to exclude the forensic interview under Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of evidence about an Alford plea when its legal details would likely confuse or mislead the jury.

State v. Tysinger · filed 2020-12-15

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that the plea was an Alford plea because this evidence in the context of this case would likely lead to “confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury[.]” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403.

A trial court’s exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

State v. McKoy · filed 2022-02-01Rule 403

“We review a trial ... court’s decision to exclude evidence under Rule 403 for abuse of discretion.”

Rule 403 permits relevant evidence despite some prejudice when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Norris · filed 2022-12-29Rule 403

However, because the trial court chose to admit both groups of evidence on reasonable bases offered by the State—including the drawings’ tendency to illustrate Defendant’s mental state, the witness’s tendency to demonstrate that the “Kill List’s” stated victims were real people, and the State’s assurance that the interviews would be “really quick”—we cannot say the trial court’s admission of the evidence rose to the level of an abuse of discretion.

Rule 403 permits photographs that illustrate witness testimony when their use is not excessive, repetitive, or unduly prejudicial.

State v. Richardson · filed 2023-09-01Rule 403

In light of this Court’s precedent and the totality of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that the eighty-eight photographs admitted to illustrate the testimony of the State’s witnesses were not excessive, repetitive, or unduly prejudicial, and we see nothing in the trial court’s considered limitation of the photographs permitted to illustrate the testimony of the State’s witnesses that would suggest that the trial court’s decision was “manifestly unsupported by reason or [was] so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Hennis, 323 N.C. at 285.

Rule 403 requires a court to balance probative value against unfair prejudice and permits exclusion when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.

State v. Lail · filed 2024-06-04Rule 403

Instead, the proper question is whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the possibility of unfair prejudice.

Rule 403 permits relevant impeachment evidence when the trial court does not find its probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Jones · filed 2024-08-06Rule 403

However, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to determine that any undue prejudice outweighed the legitimate probative value for which the 2018 plea was offered, to impeach Defendant’s witness.

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

State v. Buchanan · filed 2023-03-07Rule 403

In light of the support for the trial court’s findings in the record, coupled with the deliberate and careful handling of the process, we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the judge to determine that the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.

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

State v. Gregory · filed 2023-12-19Rule 403

Presuming, arguendo, facts that a Sell hearing occurred and that the State may have sought to forcibly medicate defendant were broadly relevant and had some probative value on defendant’s plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its determination that “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury . . . .” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2022).

Rule 403 permits testimony explaining an officer’s investigation when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Moody · filed 2024-12-17R. 403

We discern no merit to Defendant’s contention that the prejudicial value of the BOLO testimony outweighed its probative value.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or needless cumulative presentation.

State v. Hicks · filed 2024-12-31Rule 403

Therefore, Exhibit 175 plainly fails the Rule 403 balancing test in that the photos were not pertinent to the question of second-degree murder or self-defense and encouraged the jury to base its decision on an improper basis of emotion.

Rule 403 permits admission of untested suspected drugs when their connection to tested drugs supports admission and their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Hatley · filed 2025-06-04Rule 403

The admission of two items containing insignificant amounts of untested material, along with a significant quantity of tested controlled substances found among the analyzed lab items to meet the statutory threshold is not shown to have unfairly prejudiced Defendant.

Rule 403 permits autopsy photographs that illustrate medical testimony when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Sutton · filed 2025-06-18Rule 403

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 (2023). ... Here, unlike Mercer and Hennis, the autopsy photographs were not excessive, irrelevant, or redundant. ... Thus, the trial court did not err by admitting the photographs.

A trial court’s exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Schroeder v. Oak Grove Farm Homeowners Ass'n · filed 2025-08-22Rule 403

Likewise, a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under Rule 403 will only be disturbed if the decision amounted to an abuse of the court’s discretion.

Rule 403 permits admission of prior DWI convictions to show malice in a second-degree murder case when the convictions are sufficiently similar and not too remote.

State v. Armstrong · filed 2025-09-17Rule 403

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior convictions for DWI in 2003, 2006, 2010, 2012 because these offenses were not too remote nor dissimilar to the offense for which Defendant was charged in the present case, DWI and second-degree murder, to be inadmissible under Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence for unfair prejudice only when that danger substantially outweighs the evidence’s probative value.

State v. Lail · filed 2025-10-17Rule 403

Evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 only if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of,” among other things, unfair prejudice.

Rule 403 requires the trial court to balance the probative value of other-acts evidence against its prejudicial effect, and its ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

In re: P.H. & W.H. · filed 2025-11-19Rule 403

The record is devoid of evidence suggesting the trial judge failed to perform the balancing test as required under Rule 403, and we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Rule 404(b) evidence sufficiently probative and not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403.

Rule 403 permits exclusion of evidence whose slight probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.

State v. Valenzuela · filed 2026-05-20Rule 403

Recognizing the importance of testimony about how herpes can be transmitted as to both the probative value of Defendant’s evidence as well as the prejudice to the State, the trial court properly excluded the evidence of Defendant’s positive test pursuant to Rule 403.

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

State v. Wright · filed 2011-03-01Rule 403

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2009), relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. ... Based on the record, we cannot conclude the trial court’s ruling regarding Detective Guyton’s testimony was “manifestly unsupported by reason” or “so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” ... Thus, we find no abuse of discretion.

Rule 403 permits a court to exclude cumulative medical opinion testimony.

Richardson v. Patterson · filed 1994-10-18Rule 403

We disagree. In one instance the question called for mere speculation on the part of the doctor, ... and in the other instance the proffered testimony was cumulative. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403; Lowery v. Love, 93 N.C. App. 568, 572, 378 S.E.2d 815, 817 (1989).

Rule 702 excludes a geneticist’s opinion on paternity when the jury can weigh the surrounding circumstances and determine the probability of paternity itself.

State ex rel. Williams v. Coppedge · filed 1992-03-03Rule 702

Proffer of the geneticist’s opinion as to the probability of paternity would have gone beyond testimony as to scientific information and would thus have trampled upon the jury’s domain. This is not permitted under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1988).

Rule 704 permits expert opinions about underlying facts but does not permit an expert to decide whether a fiduciary relationship exists or has been breached.

Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc. · filed 1991-05-02Rule 704

A qualified expert such as Dr. Baarda should be permitted under Evidence Rule 704 to give an expert opinion regarding the existence of these factors. ... However, the witness may not opine that a fiduciary relationship exists or has been breached.

Rule 704 permits an expert to express an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact for the jury.

Livermon v. Bridgett · filed 1985-10-29Rule 704

Under Rule 704 of the Rules of Evidence, however, an expert may express an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact to be decided by the jury. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 704 (Cum. Supp. 1981).

Rules 702 and 704 permit a qualified expert to give an opinion that helps the jury understand evidence or decide a fact, even when the opinion bears on an ultimate issue.

State v. Saunders · filed 1986-07-02Rule 702; Rule 704

As the pathologist who performed the autopsy, Dr. Armstrong was clearly in a position to assist the jury in understanding the nature of the deceased’s wound and in determining whether defendant, in fact, acted in self-defense when he shot the deceased. Therefore, he was properly allowed to testify to these matters in the form of an opinion. This is true even though self-defense was an ultimate issue in the case. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 704 (Cum. Supp. 1985).

Rule 704 permits expert testimony about a defendant’s capacity to plan or emotional disturbance even when it bears on an ultimate issue for the jury.

State v. Shank · filed 1988-05-05Rule 704

In the absence of such a provision, North Carolina’s Rule 704 plainly provides that an expert witness is not precluded from testifying as to whether a defendant had the capacity to make and carry out plans, or was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance, merely because such testimony relates to an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.

The Rules of Evidence permit expert testimony about a defendant’s ability to form intent, but a medical expert cannot opine whether the legal standards of premeditation and deliberation have been met.

State v. Rose · filed 1988-11-03Rule 704

A medical expert’s opinion as to whether these legal standards have or have not been met is inadmissible. That determination is for the finder of fact.

Rules 702 and 704 allow helpful expert opinions, including opinions on ultimate issues, but do not permit an expert to give a legal conclusion the expert is unqualified to make.

State v. Silvers · filed 1989-01-04Rules 702 and 704

Testimony by experts is admissible if it will assist the ‘trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’ N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1986). Moreover, an expert may be permitted to give his opinion even though it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Id., Rule 704 (1986). However, it is not error for a trial court to refuse to admit expert testimony embracing a legal conclusion that the expert is not qualified to make. ... Dr. Rollins was improperly permitted to testify about the law of voluntary intoxication in North Carolina and its effect on defendant’s insanity defense.

Rule 704 permits expert opinion on an ultimate issue; an opinion that directors abused their discretion was admissible because it did not state a specialized legal conclusion requiring exclusion.

Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc. · filed 1989-06-06Rule 704

N.C.Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 704 (1986) provides that "[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact." ... We do not believe the testimony at issue constituted testimony on a legal conclusion or standard for which there is a specific legal meaning such that exclusion was required.

Rule 702 bars an expert from identifying the defendant as the abuser when the expert is no better positioned than the jury to decide who committed the abuse.

State v. Figured · filed 1994-08-16Rule 702

We nonetheless find that Dr. Everson was in no better position than the jury to determine whether defendant was the perpetrator and hence the admission of his testimony violated Rule 702.

Rule 704 permits opinion testimony on an ultimate issue, but an expert may not tell the jury what legal conclusion to reach.

Praxair, Inc. v. Airgas, Inc. · filed 2000-08-14Rule 704

However, Praxair’s experts may not testify that, in their opinion, the defendants reached a secret agreement under which the NWS preferred shareholders are required to exchange or redeem the remainder of its NWS stock. Such testimony would merely tell the jury what result to reach.

Rule 704 permits a medical examiner to describe a death as a homicide when the opinion is a forensic finding rather than a legal conclusion.

State v. Parker · filed 2001-11-09Rule 704

North Carolina Rule of Evidence 704 provides that “[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 704 (1999). ... Dr. Thompson did not use the word as a legal term of art. He explained how he determined the death was a homicide instead of death by natural causes, suicide, or accident. Dr. Thompson’s testimony conveyed a proper opinion for an expert in forensic pathology, and the trial court properly allowed it.

Section 8C-1 bars an expert from stating that a child sexual abuse complainant is credible, whether the opinion is given orally or in a written exhibit.

State v. O'CONNOR · filed 2002-06-16

An expert may not testify that a child victim of abuse “is believable, credible, or telling the truth” because this violates the teachings of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 405 and 608(a).

Rule 704 does not permit law enforcement officers to give their opinions on whether a defendant is guilty.

State v. Carrillo · filed 2004-05-04Rule 704

We hold that the trial court erred in allowing the officers to offer their opinions of whether defendant was guilty.

Rule 704 permits opinion testimony that embraces an ultimate issue, but a witness may testify to underlying facts without giving a legal conclusion.

State v. Hart · filed 2006-08-01Rule 704

Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, "[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 704 (2005). ... Although the State's question linked the term "constructive possession" with being in close proximity to the goods, Barnes never testified that defendant was in "constructive possession" of the evidence; rather, he testified to the underlying facts of defendant's location in proximity to the drugs.

Rule 702(a) permits an expert to explain the basis for a PTSD diagnosis when the testimony addresses the diagnosis’s reliability rather than a witness’s credibility.

State v. Torres-Robles · filed 2014-06-03Rule 702(a)

Such testimony by an expert witness is relevant testimony that can assist the trier of fact to understand the basis of the expert’s opinion pursuant to Marine. Furthermore, Dr. Johnson’s testimony relates directly to the causes which resulted in the PTSD diagnosis, and therefore went to the reliability of his diagnosis, not Cory’s credibility.

Rule 704 permits lay opinion testimony on an ultimate issue when it helps the jury assess the evidence.

State v. Cardenas · filed 2025-06-18Rule 704

While Det. Sisk’s testimony might have addressed the ultimate issue of whether Kasey was acting consistently with the profile of a sexually abused child, as Defendant contends, such testimony is permitted pursuant to Rule 704. Id. Additionally, lay testimony regarding Det. Sisk’s general experience as to disclosure by sexually abused children was “helpful to the jury” in its consideration of Kasey’s differing accounts. See id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, this was not an abuse of discretion.

An expert may address an ultimate issue but may not testify that a legal standard such as proximate cause has been met.

State v. Cunningham · filed 2026-05-06Rule 704

As “proximate cause” is a legal term of art, his testimony improperly stated a legal conclusion.

Rule 703 allows an expert to base an opinion on otherwise inadmissible facts or data if experts in the field reasonably rely on them.

State v. Payne · filed 1991-04-03Rule 703

North Carolina Rule of Evidence 703, N.C.G.S; § 8C-1, provides that an expert may base his opinion on facts or data not otherwise admissible if they are “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences. . . .” ... Agent Hedgecock testified that his opinion was based on statistics from SBI studies conducted between 1979 and 1983 and from scientific journals, both of which he testified are generally relied on by other experts in his field. Agent Hedgecock’s testimony laid a sufficient foundation to support admission of his expert opinion.

Rule 703 permits an expert to base an opinion on facts personally perceived or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.

State v. France · filed 1989-06-06Rule 703

Our Rules of Evidence provide that “[t]he facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing.” G.S. 8C-1, Rule 703. The facts upon which Dr. Gable based his opinion were both within his personal knowledge and admitted into evidence.

Rule 702 permits a qualified witness to give expert opinion testimony when specialized knowledge will help the factfinder; a court may reject proposed testimony that lacks a sound basis in the facts or testing.

State v. Garvick · filed 1990-06-05Rule 702

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence provide, “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion.” G.S. 8C-1, Rule 702. ... However, Mr. Pharr had not conducted, nor was he aware of, any scientific experimentation with the breathalyzer to substantiate that a smudge on the vial would affect the accuracy of the reading. Moreover, there was no evidence in the record that the breathalyzer test was administered improperly, and all parties stipulated that the chemical analysis of defendant’s breath was conducted in accordance with the regulations. Therefore, the decision of the trial judge to deny expert status to Mr. Pharr was not reversible error.

Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony based on knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; an expert need not have experience with the precise subject at issue.

Matter of Chasse · filed 1994-08-16Rule 702

An expert need not have had experience in the very subject at issue.

Rule 702 requires relevant specialized knowledge, training, education, or skill for an expert opinion on whether a job is “made work.”

Arrington v. Texfi Industries · filed 1996-08-06Rule 702

As Dr. Peterson has no special knowledge, training, education, or skill regarding employment within Texfi or the yarn industry, his characterization of the custodial position as “make-do work” is immaterial to either the legal or factual determination of whether the custodial position is “made work.” See id. at 438, 342 S.E.2d at 806 (emphasizing testimony about “make work” nature of plaintiff’s job provided by defendant’s personnel manager and a vocational rehabilitation and job skills expert). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1992). Therefore, under Peoples, Arrington failed to establish, through competent testimony, that his custodial position is “made work.”

Rule 702 permits a witness to qualify as an expert when knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education makes the witness better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the subject.

State v. Hairston · filed 1996-09-17Rule 702

A witness may be qualified as an expert if the trial court finds that through “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” the witness has acquired such skill that he or she is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (Cum. Supp. 1995). ... This testimony established that the witness had particularized training and experience in forensic serology, and he was properly accepted by the trial court as an expert in that area.

Rule 702 permits qualified expert testimony that assists the jury, but a neuropsychologist may not testify to medical causation beyond the statutory limits of psychology practice.

Martin v. Benson · filed 1997-02-18Rule 702

However, we must consider Rule 702 in light of this State's statutes defining the practice of "psychology." ... We conclude that Dr. Gamboa, in expressing an opinion that the plaintiff did not suffer a closed head injury in this accident, testified as to medical causation. This testimony invades the field reserved for the practice of medicine in this State. ... Thus, the trial court erred in allowing this portion of Dr. Gamboa's testimony, entitling plaintiff to a new trial and we need not consider plaintiff's other assignment of error.

Rule 702(a) permits expert opinion testimony only when the witness is qualified to give the opinion and it would assist the jury.

Pelzer v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 1997-05-20Rule 702(a)

We agree with the trial court that the evidence does not establish that Mr. Bradbury was qualified to testify as to the opinions which plaintiff sought to elicit from him. Therefore, Mr. Bradbury’s opinion testimony would not have been of assistance to the jury in understanding the evidence and was excluded.

Rule 702(b)(1)(a) permits a specialist to testify about another specialist’s standard of care when they practice the same specialty.

Trapp v. MacCioli · filed 1998-04-07(b)(1)(a)

In this case, Dr. Podgorny did not specialize in “the same specialty” as the defendant and thus did not qualify as an expert witness under Rule 702(b)(1)(a).

Rule 705 governs disclosure of the facts or data underlying an expert’s testimony at trial; it does not require production of research documents.

Fallis v. Watauga Medical Center, Inc. · filed 1999-01-19Rule 705

A careful reading of Rule 705 and the Commentary reveal that the Rule is directed at disclosure in the context of testimony at trial.

Rule 705 permits disclosure of the facts or data underlying an expert opinion on direct or cross-examination, or on voir dire before the opinion.

State v. Pretty · filed 1999-08-03Rule 705

Thus, while rule 705 provides for the disclosure of the underlying facts or data forming the basis of expert testimony upon an adverse party's request, it permits the trial court to require such disclosure either on direct or cross-examination, or on voir dire before stating the opinion.

Rule 702(b)(2) requires an expert to qualify before offering an opinion on the appropriate standard of health care; testimony about causation is distinct.

Andrews v. Carr · filed 1999-11-02Rule 702(b)(2)

In this case Dr. Boyce did not qualify under Rule 702 to offer opinion testimony with regard to the standard of health care at issue and he did not offer such evidence. His testimony, which has been questioned by Defendants, related to causation and it is not disputed that he was qualified to offer causation testimony.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony when a witness’s study or experience gives the witness the requisite skill to testify on the subject.

State v. Bowers · filed 1999-12-07Rule 702

Therefore, we find the trial court’s determination that these witnesses possessed the requisite skills to testify as an expert to be supported by the evidence in the record.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony only when it will help the jury understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.

State v. Mackey · filed 2000-05-02Rule 702

Nonetheless, an expert’s testimony will only be admissible if the testimony is helpful to the jury.

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

State v. MacKey · filed 2000-10-06Rule 702(a)

Pursuant to Rule 702, no expert testimony as to the credibility of Manning would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

Rule 702(c)(1) permits a physician to testify about a general practitioner’s standard of care only if the physician practiced as a general practitioner for a majority of professional time during the preceding year; a specialist does not qualify.

FormyDuval v. Bunn · filed 2000-06-20(c)(1)

The language of the statute is unambiguous: only general practitioners are allowed to testify against general practitioners. Specialists, who are more qualified than general practitioners, may testify only against other specialists.

Rule 705 permits a party to request voir dire to examine the basis of an expert’s opinion; failing to request it can contribute to waiver of a challenge to that opinion.

Brooks v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2000-08-29Rule 705

Accordingly, in light of Wal-Mart’s failure to move to strike the standard of care testimony by Burton which it now challenges on appeal, ... and its further failure to object to the tender of Burton as an expert in pharmacy or to request a voir dire hearing pursuant to Rule 705 to explore the bases for his opinion, ... the present argument of Wal-Mart, ... is not properly before us.

Rule 702 permits an expert to testify that a child was sexually abused when the opinion rests on adequate data obtained during treatment.

State v. Youngs · filed 2000-12-29Rule 702(a)

This testimony established a sufficient foundation to permit the trial court to allow Dr. Lattimer’s expert opinion to be admitted into evidence. Her opinions were based on adequate data obtained during and for the purposes of treatment of “A” and were admissible as expert testimony under Rule 702.

Rule 702(a) requires an expert's opinion to rest on specialized expertise that assists the jury; an opinion that a child was sexually abused cannot rest solely on the child's account when there is no physical evidence of abuse.

State v. Grover · filed 2001-03-20Rule 702(a)

Therefore, we hold that the State failed to demonstrate that "the opinion expressed by [Ms. Rowe] was really based upon h[er] special expertise, or ... that [s]he was in a[ny] better position than the jury to have an opinion on the subject" as required for admittance pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702.

Rule 702(b)(2)(a) permits a pediatrician with an active practice in pediatric gastroenterology to testify against pediatricians when that practice includes the relevant diagnosis and treatment of similar patients.

Edwards Ex Rel. Edwards v. Wall · filed 2001-02-06Rule 702(b)(2)(a)

We agree with plaintiffs that Dr. Ament qualifies as an expert under Rule 702(b)(2)(a) in that he has an “active clinical practice of the same specialty [pediatrics] or a similar specialty [subspecialty of pediatric gastroenterology] which includes within its specialty the performance that is the subject of the complaint [diagnosing pediatric appendicitis] and ha[s] prior experience treating similar patients [children].”

Rule 702(h) is an evidentiary rule and does not require Rule 9(j) certification for hospital administrative negligence claims.

Estate of Waters v. Jarman · filed 2001-06-05(h)

However, Rule 702(h) is a rule of evidence, not one of substantive law. ... we do not believe the language of Rule 702(h) applies to require Rule 9(j) certification.

Rule 703 permits an expert to rely on facts or data of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in that expert’s particular field.

State v. Galloway · filed 2001-08-21Rule 703

Therefore, we hold that the statements were not inherently reliable or the type reasonably relied upon by experts in Dr. Clancy’s particular field— surgery. Hence, the trial court properly excluded these statements under Rule 703.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified accident reconstruction expert to testify when the testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence.

State v. Holland · filed 2002-06-04(a)

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (2001), in order for expert testimony to be admitted, the expert must be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” ... We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Trooper Hiatt was more qualified than the jury on the subject at hand, and that his testimony would assist the jury in understanding the evidence.

Rule 702(b) requires a medical expert testifying about a specialist to meet its specialty and prior-year professional practice or instruction requirements.

Leatherwood v. Ehlinger · filed 2002-06-18(b)

Thus, we conclude Dr. Jones is of the same or similar specialty as defendant such that he meets the criteria set forth in Rule 702(b)(1). ... Hence, we also conclude Dr. Jones satisfied the criteria set forth in Rule 702(b)(2). Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to strike Dr. Jones’ testimony.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified expert to give opinion testimony that will help the jury, and the trial judge has discretion to determine whether the witness qualifies.

State v. Jones · filed 2001-12-18Rule 702(a)

We further note that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Dr. Cooper as an expert in developmental and forensic pediatrics.

Rule 702(b)'s expert qualifications apply to medical malpractice actions; the general provisions of Rule 702 governed expert qualifications in this negligence case.

Gregory v. Kilbride · filed 2002-06-18(b)

However, plaintiff relies on 702(b), which applies to medical malpractice actions and this is not a classic medical malpractice case. The trial court properly found that these witnesses qualified as experts under the general provisions of Rule 702.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified medical expert to give an opinion about the cause of a child’s injury when the opinion draws on the expert’s examination and specialized experience.

State v. Santiago · filed 2001-12-28Rule 702(a)

In this case, Dr. Brown’s testimony that in her opinion Deanna’s rectal tear was the result of abuse by penetration was related to a diagnosis based upon her medical examination of Deanna. We disagree with defendant that the jury was just as qualified as Dr. Brown, an expert in pediatrics and identification of child abuse who has examined thousands of children, to determine whether the nature of Deanna’s injuries was indicative of abuse, and to ascertain whether Deanna’s rectal tear was likely the result of penetration.

Rule 702 permits expert testimony that helps the jury determine the truth when the opinion has a proper foundation.

State v. Stokes · filed 2002-05-21Rule 702

Expert testimony that is helpful to the jury in carrying out its role in determining the truth is admissible if based on a proper foundation. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (1999). ... We find that the opinion expressed by Dr. Lantz in this case, although partially based on minimal evidence of prior injuries, fell within the bounds of permissible medical testimony.

Rule 702 requires an adequate foundation for expert testimony that a child was in fact sexually assaulted.

State v. Stancil · filed 2002-03-07Rule 702

Upon the record before us, the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for the admission of Dr. Prakash’s statement of opinion that the victim was in fact sexually assaulted under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702.

Rule 702(a) does not permit an expert to opine that a child was sexually abused without physical evidence supporting that diagnosis.

State v. Dixon · filed 2002-05-07Rule 702(a)

Though Dr. Powell's testimony with respect to the various psychological tests, interviews, and reports upon which he relied may have been a sufficient foundation to support an opinion that S.E. did or did not exhibit symptoms or characteristics of victims of child sexual abuse, it was not a sufficient foundation for the admission of his opinion, under Rule 702, that S.E. had in fact been sexually abused.

Rule 702(a) permits qualified experts to testify when their knowledge and experience can help the jury understand nursing procedures and the applicable standard of care.

Estate of Hendrickson Ex Rel. Hendrickson v. Genesis Health Venture, Inc. · filed 2002-07-02Rule 702(a)

Having reviewed the testimony of both witnesses, we discern no abuse of discretion in the rulings complained of by defendant GENS. Both witnesses were amply qualified by training, experience and knowledge to assist the jury in understanding the evidence with respect to nursing procedures and the applicable standard of care required of GENS.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified expert to give an opinion based on specialized knowledge; uncertainty about the conclusion affects its weight, not its admissibility.

State v. Lippard · filed 2002-09-03Rule 702(a)

The fact that there was uncertainty about whether the victims suffered one or two shots each went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Rule 702(a) permits expert testimony that helps the jury understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue.

Floyd v. McGill · filed 2003-02-04Rule 702(a)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2001) permits the admission of expert testimony if it “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” ... Both Dr. Rao and Dr. Brown have appropriate educational and clinical backgrounds to qualify them as experts. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Dr. Rao or Dr. Brown were not qualified to testify regarding biomechanics or that their opinions were confusing or unhelpful to the jury.

Rule 702 permits a qualified medical expert to opine that a patient was sexually assaulted when the opinion rests on the expert’s treatment and observations.

State v. O'HANLAN · filed 2002-11-05Rule 702

Likewise, Dr. Lichtig’s opinion regarding sexual assault was based on her expertise in treating sexually abused patients, the victim’s emotional state in the emergency room, her physical appearance and from what the victim had told her during the course of treatment. This is a proper foundation for her expert opinion that the victim was sexually assaulted in accordance with N.C.R. Evid. 702.

Rule 702 permits expert causation testimony that helps the jury and rests on a sufficient basis; uncertainty about causation affects its weight rather than its admissibility.

Johnson v. Piggly Wiggly of Pinetops, Inc. · filed 2003-02-04Rule 702

Thus, after Cherry, as to the admissibility of expert testimony on causation, as long as the testimony is helpful to the jury and based sufficiently on information reasonably relied upon under Rule 703, the testimony is admissible.

Rule 801(c) does not treat statements admitted to show the basis for an expert’s diagnosis as hearsay when they are not offered for their truth.

State v. Shepherd · filed 2003-02-04Rule 801(c)

As the minor child’s statements were made during the gathering of information to obtain her medical history, they were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but to illustrate the type of information Dr. Coker collected in order to diagnose the minor child. Accordingly, the statements were not hearsay, and the trial court properly admitted them into evidence.

Rule 703 allows an expert to base an opinion on information supplied by others; the lack of a personal examination can affect the opinion’s weight rather than its admissibility.

State v. McCall · filed 2004-01-06Rule 703

The fact that Vaughn’s expert testimony took the form of hypothetical questions and was based on information related to her by a third party does not affect the admissibility of her opinion, but instead goes to the weight of the evidence.

Rule 703 allows an expert to base an opinion on another analyst’s notes and data if experts in the field reasonably rely on that information.

State v. Foye · filed 2004-07-06Rule 703

Admissibility of an expert opinion based on an out-of-court communication is now governed by Rule 703. ... Pursuant to the clear precedent of Huffstetler, we overrule this assignment of error.

Section 8C-1 permits a forensic serologist with extensive experience examining blood evidence to give an expert opinion on bloodstain patterns when that experience puts her in a better position than the jury to form the opinion.

State v. Bruton · filed 2004-08-17Rule 702

It is not unreasonable to conclude that, based on her extensive experience with blood evidence, she would be better qualified than a jury to form an opinion as to the cause of particular bloodstains. Thus, we cannot say that it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to permit Agent Elwell’s testimony.

Rule 104(a) gives trial courts authority to decide preliminary questions about expert qualifications and admissibility without being bound by the rules of evidence.

State v. Fuller · filed 2004-10-19Rule 104(a)

It is well-established that trial courts must decide preliminary questions concerning the qualifications of experts to testify or the admissibility of expert testimony. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 104(a) (2003). When making such determinations, trial courts are not bound by the rules of evidence. ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Nurse Smith to testify as an expert in the area of a sexual assault nurse examiner.

Rule 702 gives trial courts wide latitude in applying the expert testimony rule, with appellate review for abuse of discretion.

FAZ OF RTP, LLC v. 55 & ALLENDOWN, LLC · filed 2004-10-19

The trial court is granted wide latitude in applying Rule 702, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. ... We discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in accepting the testimony of Mr. Willoughby and rejecting that of Mr. McGaughey.

Rule 702(a) permits expert testimony comparing glass samples when the testing method is reliable, the witness is qualified, and the testimony is relevant.

State v. McVay · filed 2004-12-21Rule 702(a)

We believe the extensive voir dire testimony of Investigator French was sufficient to support the trial court’s discretionary determination to admit the evidence of the consistency of the glass samples pursuant to the reliability of the tests.

Rule 703 permits an expert to recount out-of-court statements used as the basis for an opinion when the statements are not offered for their truth.

IN THE MATTER OF PC · filed 2005-02-15Rule 703

Under this rule, an expert may use out-of-court communications as the basis of an opinion and recount those communications to the trial court. ... Therefore, P.C.'s statements do not go to the truth of the matter asserted, which is that actual abuse occurred, but instead are used as (1) the basis of an expert opinion and (2) to show her premature sexualization. Therefore, the statements to Dr. Powell are not inadmissible hearsay.

Rule 702 permits a medical expert to opine that sexual abuse occurred when physical evidence provides a proper foundation for the opinion.

State v. Goforth · filed 2005-06-07Rule 702

As we said in Dixon, where there is a proper foundation showing physical evidence consistent with sexual abuse, an expert medical witness may properly render an opinion pursuant to Rule 702 that sexual abuse has in fact occurred.

Rule 702(a) permits expert testimony within a witness’s expertise when it helps the jury understand the evidence.

State v. Alderson · filed 2005-09-20Rule 702(a)

This testimony was within Agent Edwards' expertise and was likely to assist the jury in inferring why such evidence was considered important and why it was seized during a search warrant of defendant's residence for a methamphetamine laboratory.

Rule 702(b) requires an expert who establishes the standard of care to be a licensed health care provider in the same or a similar specialty as the defendant.

Billings v. Rosenstein · filed 2005-10-18Rule 702(b)

Also, the standard of care must be established by a licenced health care provider who specializes in the same or similar specialty as the medical professional. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(b) (2004). Dr. Mascenik testified that he has a specialty in general consulting neurology. Dr. Kaplan is a board certified neurologist. Therefore, Dr. Kaplan specializes in the same specialty as Defendant Dr. Mascenik. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(b).

Rule 702(a) permits technicians with training and experience in ignition interlock systems to give opinions that help determine whether a device functioned properly.

Hargrove v. Howard · filed 2005-12-06Rule 702(a)

The technicians' training andexperience qualified them to assist the hearing officer in determining whether the ignition interlock device functioned properly.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified death scene investigator to give expert opinions on lividity and approximate time of death without being a medical specialist.

State v. Steelmon · filed 2006-04-04Rule 702(a)

Therefore, Officer Yoder was qualified to give an expert opinion on lividity of the body and approximate time of death, even though he was not a medical expert, as our standard does not require an expert to be licensed or a specialist in the field in which he testifies.

Rule 104(a) requires trial courts to decide preliminary questions about expert qualifications and admissibility without being bound by the rules of evidence.

Hughes v. Webster · filed 2006-02-07Rule 104(a)

It is well established that trial courts must decide preliminary questions concerning the qualifications of experts to testify or the admissibility of expert testimony. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 104(a) (2005). When making such determinations, trial courts are not bound by the rules of evidence. ... Dr. Kelling admitted that he was not an expert in the area in which he was testifying and further admitted that he came to have his opinion solely by reading the opinion of another expert in the field. These are not appropriate qualifications for expert testimony.

Rule 104(a) requires the trial court to decide preliminary questions about a witness’s qualifications and the admissibility of testimony.

North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Haywood County · filed 2006-03-03Rule 104(a)

A trial court must decide preliminary questions pertaining to the qualifications of a witness and the admissibility of testimony. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 104(a) (2005).

Rule 702(a) permits expert opinion that a child was sexually abused when the child’s history and supporting physical findings provide a sufficient basis and the opinion helps the jury understand the evidence.

State v. Hammett · filed 2006-12-15Rule 702(a)

In light of Dr. Conroy’s specialized knowledge in pediatrics and child physical and sexual abuse, her opinion testimony assisted the jury in understanding the evidence presented.

Once expert testimony meets Rule 702(a)’s admissibility threshold, objections to the quality of the expert’s conclusions go to weight.

Lane v. American National Can Co. · filed 2007-02-06Rule 702(a)

A review of the records and briefs clearly shows that plaintiffs contentions on appeal only challenge the methodology of Dr. Artigues’ opinion which goes to the weight of her testimony and not the admissibility, and this Court will not address such issues.