N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant when it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable; testimony that officers gave Miranda warnings can be relevant to rebut an attack on their professionalism.

State v. Carter · filed 1994-01-28Rule 401

Relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992). ... The evidence that defendant was read his Miranda rights according to law and that he indicated his understanding of them tends to refute the characterization of the officers’ conduct as unprofessional.

Rule 401 treats a defendant’s conduct after a crime as relevant when it sheds light on the crime and rebuts his account of his family relationships.

State v. Collins · filed 1994-03-04Rule 401

In the present case, evidence tending to show that the defendant did not support his children and did not send them gifts following his wife’s death tended to shed light upon the circumstances surrounding the shooting. ... Specifically, it tended to rebut the defendant’s characterization of his relationship with his wife and children as a caring, supportive one. It was therefore relevant and admissible.

Rule 401 permits physical evidence that tends to make a fact at issue more probable; the absence of a direct connection affects its weight rather than its admissibility.

State v. Sierra · filed 1994-03-04Rule 401

Under Rule 401, “relevant evidence” is that evidence which has a logical tendency to make a fact at issue “more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992). ... Thus, the bullet was relevant to defendant’s case and was properly admitted into evidence.

Rule 401 makes evidence relevant when it tends to prove a consequential fact; evidence about a customer transfer’s financial effect can bear on a nonprofit utility’s ability to provide future service.

Dennis v. Duke Power Co. · filed 1994-04-19Rule 401

See G.S. 8C-1, Rule 401 (“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence”). ... This type of evidence, given both the strong public policy enunciated in both G.S. 62-2 and G.S. 117-2 and the liberal standards for the admission of evidence in proceedings before the Commission, is relevant to a nonprofit electric supplier’s ability to provide adequate future services to its consumer-members.

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant at sentencing when it tends to prove an aggravating circumstance, even after a guilty plea.

State v. Jones · filed 1994-05-06Rule 401

The videotape showed the defendant remove the cash register from the convenience store. This was competent evidence that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain. The videotape showed the defendant shoot two people, including the deceased. This was evidence that the murder was part of a course of conduct which included a crime of violence against another person.

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant if it tends to make a consequential fact more probable than it would be without the evidence.

In re the Will of Jones · filed 1994-05-17Rule 401

Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make a fact of consequence more probable than it would be without such evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1990). ... We find nothing in the record with regards to the excluded testimony to suggest that the trial court erred. We defer to the trial court’s ruling and find no error on this issue.

Rule 401 permits evidence of an employer’s treatment of similarly situated employees to show its motive in a retaliatory discharge case.

Abels v. Renfro Corp. · filed 1993-12-03

We first note that under Rule 401 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992). ... We conclude that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to exclude defendant’s comparative evidence of similarly situated employees and that, as a result, defendant is entitled to a new trial.

Rules 401 and 402 permit exclusion of evidence that does not make an issue in the case more or less likely.

Kapp v. Kapp · filed 1994-05-06Rules 401 and 402

This evidence would not have had a tendency to make the relations of William and Keith to Josephine more likely to be fiduciary relations. Nor would it have made it more or less likely that Josephine relied on the advice of Robert Vaughn in exercising the option. It would also not make it more or less likely that the exercise of the option was an open, fair and honest transaction. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992).

Evidence of a victim’s illegal weapon is irrelevant under Rule 401 when the weapon had no connection to the events leading to the victim’s death.

State v. Moore · filed 1994-12-30Rule 401

Here, the fact that the victim kept under his mattress an illegal weapon which had nothing to do with the events leading up to his death is irrelevant. The trial court properly sustained the State’s objection to defendant’s cross-examination on this subject.

Rule 402 excludes evidence whose relevance has not been shown.

State v. Solomon · filed 1995-05-05Rule 402

Absent such an offer of proof, coupled with the failure to lay a proper foundation for the introduction of the letters, there was no showing of relevance. Evidence not relevant is not admissible. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1992). The trial court properly sustained each of the prosecutor’s objections.

Rule 402 excludes testimony about a murder victim’s mental condition when that condition could not affect whether the defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation.

State v. Hightower · filed 1995-07-28Rule 402

“Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1992). ... Thus, because we have concluded that defendant’s version of the events surrounding the murder and the murder itself failed to establish provocation sufficient to negate defendant’s premeditation and deliberation, regardless of the victim’s mental condition at this time, testimony concerning the victim’s mental condition would have been irrelevant to any fact in issue. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly excluded such evidence.

Rules 401 and 402 allow evidence that tends to link a defendant to a crime when it is probative of guilt.

State v. Burke · filed 1995-11-03Rules 401 and 402

In order for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1992). ... Because the evidence was probative on the question of defendant’s guilt and could be used to connect him to the crime, the trial judge did not err in admitting this evidence.

Rules 402 and 403 permit exclusion of evidence that does not tend to prove a fact in consequence.

State v. Cothran · filed 1995-11-07Rules 402, 403

Accordingly, Woodford’s excluded testimony that the defendant’s Intoxilyzer reading did not accurately reflect his blood alcohol level is not admissible and the trial court correctly excluded this evidence. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rules 402, 403 (1992) (only evidence tending to prove a fact in consequence is relevant and admissible).

Rule 401 does not treat a passport showing travel to Colombia as relevant when that travel does not tend to prove a fact at issue.

State v. Cuevas · filed 1996-02-20Rule 401

Suffice ... it to say that we agree with defendant’s contention that the mere ownership of a passport showing travel to Colombia is not probative of a fact at issue in this case.

Rule 401 makes evidence relevant when it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable; later dismissal of the related charge does not undo its admissibility.

State v. Norwood · filed 1996-10-11Rule 401

Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992). Officer Breedlove’s testimony concerning Mr. Dew was certainly relevant and admissible to support the charge that the defendant committed an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury upon Mr. Dew. Furthermore, the trial court’s dismissal of the assault indictment at the close of the State’s evidence does not affect the admissibility of the evidence.

Rules 401 and 402 allow admission of a possible murder weapon when it is relevant; uncertainty about its connection to the crime affects its weight.

State v. DeCastro · filed 1996-03-08Rules 401 and 402

Under our rules of evidence, unless otherwise provided, all relevant evidence is admissible. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1988). ... Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to exclude the knife and in allowing the prosecution to present it to the jury. Defendant's arguments regarding the lapse of time in finding the knife and its distance from the crime scene merely go to the weight or probative value of the evidence.

Rules 401 and 402 make evidence relevant when it tends to prove a consequential fact and generally allow relevant evidence to be admitted.

State v. Bruton · filed 1996-09-06Rules 401 and 402

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992). Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1992). ... For this reason the nine-millimeter cartridges were relevant and admissible.

Under Rule 401, inconsistencies in a deposition can make facts less probable and render the deposition relevant to a claim of bad faith.

State v. Monserrate · filed 1997-01-07Rule 401

Relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401. ... Although there may be explanations for these inconsistencies, the fact that the inconsistencies exist means the deposition has a tendency to make the existence of certain facts less probable. Thus, the deposition could be probative of bad faith on the part of Agent Cummings and should have been admitted into evidence.

Under Rule 401, expert testimony that a murder defendant “snapped” is relevant when it tends to show that he did not premeditate and deliberate the killings.

State v. Burgess · filed 1997-02-10Rule 401

Defendant argues that the testimony of Dr. Warren that defendant “snapped” tended to show that defendant was not in a cool state of blood when he shot the victims and, thus, was relevant since it tended to show that defendant did not premeditate and deliberate the killings. We agree. ... Nevertheless, a determination of relevancy under Rule 401 does not necessarily end the inquiry as to whether a trial court erred in sustaining an objection to proffered expert witness testimony.

Rule 401 treats a document as irrelevant when it has no bearing on an issue supported by the party’s proof.

ESTATE OF SMITH, BY & THROUGH SMITH v. Underwood · filed 1997-08-05Rule 401

Furthermore, the refusal of the court to judicially notice the Treasury Department circular was not prejudicial, as the circular was not relevant to any issue before the court, because plaintiffs failed in their offer of proof of how the nondisclosure was connected to the consummation of any transaction. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992).

Under Rule 401, prior arrests are irrelevant to impeachment when they show only that a witness was arrested and the charges did not proceed.

State v. Johnson · filed 1998-01-20Rule 401

Evidence is considered relevant when it has a “tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992). The two additional arrests show nothing beyond the fact that Little was arrested and that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the charges; they have no tendency to prove he was guilty of the offenses with which he was charged. Thus, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to question Little about these two arrests.

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

State v. Mickey · filed 1998-02-06Rule 401

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1983). Evidence of defendant’s financial dealings with Chris Cook was relevant to understanding the leverage he exerted against Cook in inducing and conspiring with him to commit murder.

Rule 402 excludes third-party guilt evidence that merely suggests another person had a motive without linking that person to the crime.

State v. Wright · filed 1997-11-04Rule 402

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402, “[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1992). Therefore, since we have found that the testimonial evidence was not relevant, it is unnecessary to address defendant’s claim that the evidence was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Rules 401 and 402 allow relevant evidence, but a victim’s prior marriage and pregnancy are irrelevant when they have no bearing on the defendant’s guilt.

State v. Hill · filed 1997-11-07Rules 401 and 402

The fact that the victim had been married and pregnant is not relevant to the jury’s determination of defendant’s guilt in these crimes. Further, there was no evidence that the victim’s prior marriage and pregnancy had anything to do with the murder.

Rules 401 and 402 make evidence inadmissible when it does not bear on a fact of consequence to the action.

Estridge v. Housecalls Healthcare Group, Inc. · filed 1998-12-29Rules 401 and 402

Rule 402 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence states that “[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1992). Relevant evidence is defined as evidence which tends “to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1992). Defendants contend that evidence of Housecalls’ billing practices was irrelevant to the claims stated by plaintiff and should not have been admitted at trial. We agree that the trial court erred in allowing the evidence of billing practices and the testimony of Robert Nowell (Mr. Nowell), the Assistant Director of the State Division of Medical Assistance, Program Integrity Section.

Rule 402 excludes evidence of a victim’s past conduct when it is irrelevant to the defendant’s asserted defense.

State v. Clark · filed 1997-12-16Rule 402

Rule 402 precludes the admission of irrelevant evidence. ... Contrary to Clark’s assertion, the fact that his wife had a prior criminal record, used drugs during the marriage, had extra-marital affairs, and had a baby by another man during her marriage to him were simply of no relevance to any theory of his case.

Rule 402 excludes evidence that is irrelevant to the defendant’s involvement in the charged crimes.

State v. Teague · filed 1999-09-07Rule 402

With some exceptions, all relevant evidence is generally admissible. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1992). However, “[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Id. The defendant argues — and we agree — that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Lemon’s robbery and attack of another person following the victims’ deaths because that evidence was not relevant to the issue of the defendant’s involvement with the victims’ deaths.

Rules 401-403 require a threshold inquiry into relevance, and evidence may be excluded when it is irrelevant to the issues presented for trial.

Tomika Investments, Inc. v. Macedonia True Vine Pentecostal Holiness Church of God, Inc. · filed 1999-11-02

The admissibility of evidence is governed by a threshold inquiry into its relevance. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 401-403 (1992). ... Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the relevance of the video evidence, we hold that no error was committed, and thus there was no resulting prejudice to the defendant.

Section 8C-1, Rules 401–403, requires courts to assess evidence’s relevance to the issues being tried and weigh its probative and prejudicial value.

Tomika Investments, Inc. v. MacEdonia True Vine Pentecostal Holiness Church of God, Inc. · filed 2000-02-01

The admissibility of evidence is governed by a threshold inquiry into its relevance. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 401-403 (1992). ... Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the relevance of the video evidence, we hold that no error was committed, and thus there was no resulting prejudice to the defendant.

A gun displayed to illustrate testimony is irrelevant under Rule 401 when the evidence establishes no relationship to the gun used in the offense beyond a possible difference in size.

State v. Godley · filed 2000-09-19Rule 401

Because the evidence does not establish any relationship between the investigating officer's gun and the gun used by Defendant other than Defendant's gun "[c]ould have been a little bigger" than the investigating officer's gun, the State's exhibition of the investigating officer's gun was not relevant under Rule 401.

Evidence implicating another person in a crime is relevant and admissible when it casts doubt on the defendant’s guilt and goes beyond conjecture.

State v. Israel · filed 2000-12-21Rules 401, 402

Relevant evidence is, as a general matter, admissible. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1999). ... Because the excluded evidence cast doubt upon the State’s evidence that defendant was the perpetrator of this crime and because it implicated another person as that perpetrator beyond conjecture or mere implication, it was relevant and admissible. We hold that the trial court erred in barring its admission.

Rule 402 permits exclusion of a plea agreement offered to show witness bias when it does not show that the witness received consideration for testifying.

State v. Lambert · filed 2002-03-05Rule 402

Because the plea agreement did not show that Watson received any type of consideration for his testimony, the trial court properly excluded the evidence as irrelevant.

Rule 401 requires evidence to tend to prove a fact of consequence to the action; a photograph with no such tendency is irrelevant.

State v. Mann · filed 2002-04-05Rule 401

Under Rule 401 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence is that having “any tendency” to establish “the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1999). ... Nonetheless, we conclude that the trial court ... erred, inasmuch as the photograph did not tend to prove the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of defendant’s guilt.

In a habitual felon proceeding, Rules 401 and 402 make prior felony convictions unrelated to those the State seeks to prove irrelevant and inadmissible.

State v. Lotharp · filed 2002-02-05Rules 401 and 402

In the present case, evidence of defendant’s three felony convictions which were in addition to the convictions the State was attempting to prove, is not relevant evidence and is inadmissible.

Rule 401 defines relevant evidence by whether it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable.

State v. Bartlett · filed 2002-11-05Rule 401

Rule 401 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” ... Moreover, after careful review of the transcript, we conclude that much of the evidence defendant sought to introduce was simply an attempt by defendant to re-litigate allegations and accusations from the earlier civil trial, and that furthermore, the evidence was irrelevant to the issues before the jury.

Rule 401 permits testimony about a victim’s work and payday routine when it helps explain the circumstances of the crime.

State v. Barden · filed 2002-11-22Rule 401

In this case, our examination of the record reveals the testimony was relevant to explain the particular circumstances of the crime. The evidence explained the victim’s various duties and responsibilities and showed why he worked late nights. In addition to describing the victim’s work habits, the testimony was relevant to describe the victim’s payday routine as well as where and how he kept his money. Therefore, we hold the evidence was properly admitted.

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant when it tends to establish a consequential fact, including whether alleged patient abuse occurred.

Allen v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2002-12-31Rule 401

Finally, we reject petitioner’s argument that finding of fact #6 was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. ... there was competent evidence in the record to support the finding and it was certainly probative of the ultimate issue of whether petitioner abused M.M.

Rules 401 and 403 permit an expert to use exhibits unconnected to the defendant to illustrate relevant testimony when their explanatory value and limiting instructions address the risk of unfair prejudice.

State v. Hyman · filed 2002-10-15Rules 401 and 403

The relevance of evidence is judged in terms of its tendency to make the existence of any fact at issue more or less probable. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2002). Even where evidence is determined to be relevant, the trial court must balance its probative value against the likelihood of unfair prejudice due to confusion or the inflammatory nature of the evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2002). ... We find no prejudicial error in the trial court’s ruling permitting Investigator Wilborn to use the exhibits to illustrate his testimony, especially in view of the careful and repeated limiting instructions given by the trial court, in which the court emphasized to the jury that the exhibits were not seized from the defendant, were not linked to him, and were to be considered only for the purpose of illustrating and explaining Investigator Wilborn’s testimony.

Rule 401 permits testimony about a robbery victim’s fear when it tends to show that her life was threatened.

State v. Jackson · filed 2003-11-04Rule 401

Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2001). ... Her testimony was relevant to show that her life had been threatened and endangered with a firearm.

Rules 401 and 402 allow a court to exclude evidence that is irrelevant to the matter being decided.

Helms v. Schultze · filed 2003-12-02Rules 401 and 402

Because plaintiff’s husband is not a party to this action, the trial court properly excluded as irrelevant the challenged evidence of plaintiff’s husband’s income and assets. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 401 and 402 (2001).

Rule 401 permits expert testimony that helps explain why a normal physical examination does not rule out alleged sexual abuse.

State v. Wiggins · filed 2003-12-16Rule 401

Although this may be so, we nevertheless hold that Dr. Starling’s testimony was relevant because it served to explain to the jury why there would be no physical findings in someone like R.B. even after years of sexual abuse.

Rule 401 permits evidence of a preliminary injunction and TRO when violations of those orders tend to establish aggravating factors relevant to the claims.

Zubaidi v. Earl L. Pickett Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2004-05-04Rule 401

Defendants’ willful, wanton, and malicious disregard and violation of the preliminary injunction and TRO gave rise to the aggravating factors establishing breach of the lease/purchase agreement, conversion, and punitive damages. This conduct made the preliminary injunction and TRO relevant.

Rule 401 does not make later reports of unrelated crimes relevant to an earlier delay in reporting abuse without a demonstrated connection.

State v. Lawrence · filed 2004-08-03Rule 401

However, defendant does not articulate a connection between the failure of a scared thirteen year old child to report her father’s abuse and the fact that, as a young woman of twenty, she reported a crime committed by a non-family member to law enforcement authorities. The trial court ruled that this evidence was not relevant to any issue in the case. Giving due deference to the trial court’s determination in this regard, we conclude that the trial court did not err by excluding certain evidence of allegations made by the complainants many years after the subject offenses.

Rules 401 and 403 permit testimony about another occupant’s injuries to show the force of a collision when the testimony is relevant and not unduly prejudicial.

Dunn v. Custer · filed 2004-01-20Rules 401 and 403

Accordingly, applying deferential review to the instant case, we hold the trial court did not err in admitting the contested testimony for the limited purpose of proving the force of the impact which injured plaintiff, and, further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to exclude it pursuant to Rule 403.

Rules 401 and 402 permit evidence relevant to whether an optionee was ready, willing, and able to exercise an option when that issue affects damages.

Lee v. Scarborough · filed 2004-02-17Rules 401, 402

Such evidence is relevant to the issue of whether plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to exercise the option had it been available to him during the period specified in the option contract and should have been submitted to the jury in order to properly determine the issue of damages. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 401, 402.

Rules 401 and 402 permit evidence bearing on whether an optionee intended to exercise an option when that issue affects damages.

Lee v. Scarborough · filed 2004-05-18Rules 401, 402

Since plaintiff had not attempted to exercise the option prior to or at the time of defendant’s breach, such evidence is relevant to the issue of whether plaintiff ever intended to exercise the option had it been available to him at some time during the period specified in the option contract and should have been submitted to the jury in order to properly determine the issue of damages. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 401, 402.

Rule 401 treats medical testimony as relevant when it tends to prove a consequential element of the charge, such as whether intercourse occurred.

State v. Furr · filed 2004-10-05Rule 401

Dr. Coats's testimony that the victim's vagina was penetrated and torn was relevant and probative of the issue of whether defendant engaged in vaginal intercourse with the victim.

Rule 401 permits exclusion of an arrest warrant's initial charge when it does not bear on a disputed issue at trial.

State v. Corbett · filed 2005-01-18Rule 401

While "`the trial court's rulings on relevancy technically are not discretionary and therefore are not reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard applicable to Rule 403, such rulings are given great deference on appeal.'" Dunn v. Custer, 162 N.C.App. 259, 266, 591 S.E.2d 11, 17 (2004) (quoting State v. Wallace, 104 N.C.App. 498, 502, 410 S.E.2d 226, 228 (1991)); see N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 and Rule 403 (2003). We agree with the court that the arrest warrant in this case was outside the scope of matters relevant to whether the victim had been released in a "safe place."

Rule 401 makes evidence about an earlier neglect adjudication irrelevant when the issue at a termination hearing is the possibility of future neglect.

In Re JW · filed 2005-10-04Rule 401

Therefore, the trial court properly sustained the objection to respondent's cross-examination questions related to the validity of the first adjudication of neglect, as the relevant issue was not the prior adjudication of neglect, but the possibility of future neglect at the time of the termination hearing.

Rule 402 permits relevant evidence to be admitted.

State v. Howell · filed 2005-04-19Rule 402

We hold the exhibits were clearly relevant to the issue of defendant’s guilt of the trafficking and conspiracy offenses and were properly admitted into evidence. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (2003) (relevant evidence is admissible).

Rules 401 and 402 permit testimony about field sobriety observations when it is relevant to whether a defendant was driving while impaired.

State v. Streckfuss · filed 2005-06-21Rules 401 and 402

Evidence that defendant was impaired is relevant to the issue of whether defendant was driving while impaired. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting Deputy Goodwin’s testimony about defendant’s field sobriety tests.

Rule 402 permits relevant testimony explaining a witness’s conduct after a crime when that conduct bears on the defense’s theory of guilt.

State v. Augustine · filed 2005-08-19Rule 402

Moreover, even assuming that defendant did not waive his objection to Autry’s testimony, the evidence was properly admitted. Generally, “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (2003). ... Accordingly, Autry’s direct testimony was relevant to show that he did not flee to a motel after Officer Turner was shot because he was guilty, as argued by defendant, but rather to assist his frightened girlfriend and children.

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

State v. Harley · filed 2006-02-21Rule 401

Evidence is relevant and admissible if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2005). Not only did this evidence tend to show that defendant was operating an uninsured vehicle, it also showed the chain of circumstances leading to the stop of the vehicle and the charge of driving while impaired.

Rule 401 makes evidence relevant when it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable, even if it does not conclusively prove that fact.

State v. Moffitt · filed 2006-04-04Rule 401

We conclude that defendant's statement was relevant and the trial court did not err in admitting it. The fact that defendant possessed the Glock pistol recovered by police from the Suburban utilized in the robbery made it more probable that he acted in concert with the other men to commit the robbery, regardless of whether defendant actually used the Glock pistol during the robbery itself.

Under Rule 401, substance abuse records are irrelevant to a neglect or dependency adjudication when they add no evidence concerning neglect or dependency.

In Re EP · filed 2007-06-05Rule 401

Because the records contained no evidence regarding the neglect or dependency of the children, the records were not relevant to the adjudication hearing.

Rule 401 requires evidence to make a consequential fact more or less probable; testimony about gang violence that did not bear on the charged offenses was irrelevant.

State v. Gayton · filed 2007-08-07Rule 401

It does not tend “to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2005). Indeed, the only probative value the information had in this case was to portray defendant as a gang member. Therefore, we must conclude that the admission of this evidence was error.

Rules 401 and 402 make evidence inadmissible when it has no tendency to prove a fact of consequence in the case.

State v. Gonzalez · filed 2007-10-02Rules 401 and 402

A trial court errs when it admits irrelevant evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402 ("Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible."). "'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401. ... We conclude that this evidence was irrelevant, and was erroneously admitted.

Rule 402 excludes evidence of a victim's abuse by another person when it does not explain the physical evidence or make the charged acts less likely.

State v. Seek · filed 2007-11-20Rule 402

Thus, evidence of abuse of N.V. by her father was not relevant to explain the physical evidence or to show that the rapes charged was not committed by Defendant. Accordingly, on the rape charges against Defendant, the evidence was properly excluded under Rule 402.

Rule 401 permits evidence that another person committed the crime only when it tends to implicate that person and is inconsistent with the defendant’s guilt.

State v. Loftis · filed 2007-08-07Rule 401

Moreover, as we have already determined, the excluded evidence relating to Ms. Brinkley’s prior involvement with methamphetamine was not inconsistent with Defendant’s guilt. Therefore, we hold the trial court did not err by excluding this evidence.

Rule 402 excludes victim impact testimony during the guilt phase when it has no tendency to show the context or circumstances of the crime.

State v. Graham · filed 2007-10-02Rule 402

Therefore, it would be relevant and admissible at the guilt-innocence phase of the trial only if it also depicted the context or circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. However, there is nothing in this entire line of questioning which depicts the context or circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. The quoted testimony does not have any tendency to prove that defendant was the intruder who broke into the home of Lorine Spence around midnight on 30 December 2004 and stabbed Demetrius Spence. Consequently, the admission of this testimony was error.

Evidence offered to show that another person committed the crime must implicate that person and be inconsistent with the defendant’s guilt to be relevant under Rule 401.

State v. Lopez · filed 2008-02-05Rule 401

The excluded evidence does not point directly to the guilt of Victor Lopez, does not tend to implicate Victor Lopez in the commission of the crimes, and is not inconsistent with the. guilt of Defendant. ... The trial court did not err in excluding this evidence, and Defendant’s argument to the contrary is overruled.

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant if it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable.

Southeast Cinema Entertainment, Inc. v. P.B. Realty, Inc. · filed 2008-02-21Rule 401

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401. While it is true that Wilson cannot testify as to the events surrounding the execution of the Lease, his testimony is relevant, especially in light of Paul Broyhill’s testimony that PB Realty uses one figure for CPI.

Evidence of a victim’s drug use is relevant when it helps show the motive for the crime.

State v. Jbarre Jequiz Hope · filed 2008-03-18Rule 401

Here, Ms. Parrish’s testimony related to her son’s involvement with drugs. This involvement bolstered the prosecution’s theory that Parrish’s murder was drug-related. As such, Ms. Parrish’s testimony was relevant to show motive, and was therefore admissible.

Rule 401 permits evidence of prior incidents when it tends to show parents’ knowledge of a child’s behavior and the need for supervision in a neglect case.

In the Matter of Cp · filed 2008-04-15Rule 401

Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2005). ... We hold that this evidence was relevant to the issue of whether respondents knew of the risks inherent in leaving C.P. in his grandmother's care and, consequently, to the issue of neglect.

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant only if it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable.

Yorke v. Novant Health, Inc. · filed 2008-09-02Rule 401

Defendants’ failure to prepare a QAR simply did not make it any more or less probable that Defendants breached the standard of care when applying and monitoring Mr. Yorke’s blood pressure cuff.

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

In Matter of Jme · filed 2008-12-16Rule 401

"'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2007). Here, Dr. Lapetina's testimony about respondent-mother's intellectual capacity was relevant to the issue of whether respondent-mother could effectively parent a child. The date of the evaluation goes to the weight the trial court should have given the evidence.

Rule 401 requires evidence to make a consequential fact more or less probable to be relevant.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2009-01-06Rule 401

We agree with defendant that the picture of the decedent with his family was irrelevant in that it did not "make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2007).

Rule 401 treats the mere existence of a mandatory DSS investigation as irrelevant to whether the alleged domestic violence occurred.

Burress v. Burress · filed 2009-02-17Rule 401

While the results of a DSS investigation may be relevant to the issue of domestic violence, the fact that there is an investigation is not. The director of DSS is required to investigate any report of abuse, neglect, or dependency. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-302(a) (2007). This evidence was therefore not relevant to whether defendant actually committed acts of domestic violence against the minor children.

Rules 401 and 402 make evidence inadmissible when it does not tend to make a consequential fact more or less probable.

State v. Cowan · filed 2008-12-16Rules 401 and 402

As we deem- the testimony regarding Marlene Chambers drug trial and conviction irrelevant, the testimony was inadmissible.

Rule 401 treats evidence about why a defendant stopped working for a customer as relevant when it bears on lost business opportunities and profits.

White v. Thompson · filed 2009-05-05Rule 401

Under Rule 401, evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable...." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2007). Here, evidence of the reason for Defendant Andrew Thompson's discontinued employment at Smithfield was relevant to the extent of opportunities usurped from Ace Welding and the resulting lost profits—the main issues in the case.

Rule 401 treats physical evidence as relevant when it tends to make a consequential fact more probable.

State v. Whitley · filed 2009-08-18Rule 401

We hold that the physical evidence of the gun and the casings tended to make more probable the fact that defendant used the gun to shoot Kendrick Perkins and Antonio Perkins. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401. Thus, the evidence was relevant, properly admitted, and defendant's argument is without merit.

Rule 401 permits testimony about a victim's fear when it tends to prove violence or intimidation, an element of common law robbery.

State v. Whitlock · filed 2010-01-19Rule 401

Evidence of Taylor's fear was relevant to prove defendant's use of violence or intimidation, an essential element of common law robbery. Therefore, the trial court's admission of this evidence did not constitute error.

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant in a juvenile sexual abuse adjudication if it has a logical tendency to prove that a parent encouraged or permitted the abuse.

In the Matter of Db · filed 2010-03-02Rule 401

In the context of this case, which is a juvenile adjudication of sexual abuse involving participation of both parents, Family Letters did have some logical tendency to prove that respondents encouraged or permitted the sexual abuse of Frances and Danielle. Thus, the trial court did not err by finding that the book was relevant.

Rule 401 treats evidence of a defendant’s violence toward the victims’ mother as relevant when it explains their fear of reporting sexual abuse and rebuts a claim that their mother prompted false allegations.

State v. ESPINOZA-VALENZUELA · filed 2010-04-20Rule 401

In fact, such evidence was relevant to show why both girls were afraid to report defendant’s sexual abuse. This evidence was also relevant to refute defendant’s assertion that Victoria was pushing the children to make these allegations to get defendant arrested and out of the house.

Rules 401 and 402 make evidence inadmissible when it does not bear on a fact of consequence.

State v. MOLIX · filed 2010-05-18Rules 401 and 402

In this case, Defendant's identity was not at issue. He was in court and Officer Montgomery identified him. Therefore, we agree that Defendant's mugshot was irrelevant and inadmissible.

Rule 401 treats evidence as irrelevant when it has no tendency to prove a fact at issue, including a defendant’s substance use on the day of a prior plea when the issue is whether the defendant was convicted.

State v. Ross · filed 2010-10-19Rule 401

We agree that the challenged statements on the “transcript of plea” are irrelevant, as they do not have “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Evidence about violent offenses listed in arrest warrants is relevant when it helps explain the officer’s and defendant’s actions and states of mind during an attempted arrest.

State v. Wilson · filed 2010-10-19Rule 401

We agree with the trial court that the violent nature of the crimes listed in defendant’s arrest warrants was relevant to understanding both Sgt. Howard’s and defendant’s actions and states of mind during the attempted arrest.

Rule 401 allows testimony about an earlier robbery when shared circumstances make the defendant’s involvement in the charged robbery more probable.

State v. Hill · filed 2011-03-01Rule 401

This testimony is certainly relevant to the jury’s determination of whether Defendant, found driving Mr. Webb’s truck, was involved in an ATM robbery scheme. We therefore hold that Mr. Jones’ testimony was relevant.

Rule 402 permits exclusion of evidence about a victim’s disciplinary infractions when the conduct is unrelated to the defendant and does not shed light on the charged crimes.

State v. LAUREAN · filed 2012-05-01Rule 402

Therefore, the specific instances of conduct for which Lance Cpl. Lauterbach received minor disciplinary infractions were not relevant to the issues presented to the jury and were properly excluded from evidence presented at trial.

Rule 401 requires alternate perpetrator evidence to implicate another person and exculpate the defendant, rather than rest on conjecture.

State v. Miles · filed 2012-08-21Rule 401

The evidence must simultaneously implicate another and exculpate the defendant.

Rule 401 permits evidence of unauthorized payments when it is relevant to proving embezzlement.

State v. Renkosiak · filed 2013-04-02Rule 401

Defendant also contends the evidence regarding BP was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading to the jury. For the reasons noted above, the evidence was certainly relevant, and certainly prejudicial to defendant, but not unfairly so. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2007).

Rule 401 requires evidence to have some tendency to make a consequential fact more or less probable.

State v. Murray · filed 2013-08-20Rule 401

In this case, the transcript does not shed any light on how the photographs - if they were not authenticated as Defendant’s sons, but rather, only as men Mr. West had purchased drugs from in the past - had any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the photographs. Therefore, we conclude that Exhibits 7 and 8 were irrelevant.

Rule 401 treats evidence as relevant only if it tends to prove a fact of consequence; photographs and testimony about firearms unrelated to the crime do not meet that standard.

State v. Gudac · filed 2014-02-18Rule 401

Because this evidence was not relevant, we agree with defendant that the challenged exhibits and corresponding testimony should not have been admitted.

Rule 401 permits testimony about an eyewitness’s prior identification experience when it bears on the witness’s credibility.

State v. Griffin · filed 2014-04-01Rule 401

The fact that an eyewitness has had a previous identification experience which led him to reflect on the importance of accuracy and honesty in making such determinations has some relevance with regard to the witness’s credibility. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting Shoe’s testimony as relevant.

Under Rule 401, an additional felony conviction is irrelevant to determining habitual felon status when three qualifying convictions have been established.

State v. Blakney · filed 2014-04-15Rule 401

While the additional felony conviction was irrelevant in determining whether defendant was an habitual felon, defendant has not demonstrated how this evidence prejudiced him.

Evidence about alleged prior theft is irrelevant when it has no bearing on guilt of the charged crimes.

State v. Jandreau · filed 2014-05-06Rule 401

Although Johnston’s statement was irrelevant to the issue of defendant’s guilt of first degree murder and larceny of a firearm, we hold the trial court’s failure to explicitly rule on defendant’s objection and motion to strike was not tantamount to a decision to overrule defendant’s objection and deny defendant’s motion to strike in this case.

Rule 401 permits a rifle cartridge to be admitted as relevant illustrative evidence when it shows a bullet’s diameter and the size of the hole it would make.

State v. Smart · filed 2014-06-17Rule 401

We hold the 7.62x39 rifle cartridge was relevant for the purpose of showing to the jury the diameter of a bullet fired by a 7-millimeter rifle and the size of the hole it would have created in the victim’s residence. Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in allowing the cartridge to be admitted into evidence for illustrative purposes.

Rule 401 requires only some tendency to prove a consequential fact for evidence to be relevant.

State v. Taylor · filed 2014-08-05Rule 401

Therefore, the messages had at least some probative value and the trial court did not err in concluding that they were relevant.

Rule 401 permits testimony about events immediately after an alleged assault when it bears on a witness’s credibility or helps complete the account of the crime.

State v. Harris · filed 2014-09-16Rule 401

The challenged portion of Ms. Phillips’ testimony was relevant to show what occurred immediately after Defendant’s alleged assault upon Jessica.

Evidence is irrelevant if it has no logical tendency to prove a fact of consequence.

State v. White · filed 2015-02-17Rule 401

In the present case, we believe that the challenged testimony was irrelevant as it did not have a logical tendency to prove any fact that is of consequence.

Relevant evidence may be admitted when it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable; photographs may illustrate relevant testimony.

State v. Adams · filed 2014-05-20Rules 401 and 402

Thus, because the photographs were only admitted to illustrate this relevant testimony, we conclude that the trial court did not err by admitting them for that purpose.

Rules 401 and 402 allow testimony about a person’s demeanor when it sheds light on the circumstances of an alleged incident.

In re M.J.G. · filed 2014-06-17Rules 401 and 402

Because this testimony stemmed from Ms. Wood’s personal experience combined with Ms. Wood’s observation of juvenile, it was admissible to shed light upon the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident, and thus, was relevant and admissible.

Rules 401 and 402 permit testimony describing officers’ duties when it does not suggest that the defendant committed other crimes.

State v. Allen · filed 2014-10-07Rules 401 and 402

In the instant case, the testifying officers were merely explaining their role with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department on the Freedom Division Focus Mission Team, which included investigating murders, rapes, robberies, drugs, prostitution, and weapon offenses. ... The trial court did not err.

Rules 401 and 402 permit evidence of a loaded firearm found with marijuana as relevant to a charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana.

State v. Davis · filed 2014-10-21Rules 401 and 402

For the purpose of proving the crime of PWISD marijuana, it is clearly relevant that known accoutrements of the drug trade, including a loaded firearm, are found in the same room as the marijuana.

Rule 401 permits expert testimony explaining why a delayed examination may show no physical evidence of sexual abuse when that testimony helps the jury assess the examination results.

State v. Chavez · filed 2015-06-16Rule 401

Her testimony was relevant not only to help the jury understand the results of her examination, but also to demonstrate that a lack of physical evidence of sexual abuse does not preclude sexual abuse when there is a passing of time between the alleged incidents and the physical examination.

Rule 401 permits evidence of a driver’s alcohol use or non-use when it is relevant to a collision.

Scheffer v. Dalton · filed 2015-10-20Rule 401

Defendant’s use or non-use of alcohol would be relevant.

Under Rule 401, detectives’ interrogation statements are irrelevant when they give no context to a meaningful response, cause no change in the suspect’s account, and do not bear on trial credibility.

State v. Clevinger · filed 2016-09-06Rule 401

While we agree with defendant that the statements were not relevant to the nonhearsay purposes for which they were offered, he has failed to show prejudice to warrant a new trial.

Rule 401 permits evidence of a witness's bias when it may affect the jury's assessment of the witness's credibility.

State v. Martinez · filed 2016-12-30Rule 401

We agree with Defendant that exclusion of this evidence was error. Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2013). Evidence that Mother had accused Defendant of domestic violence could have indicated Mother's bias against Defendant and may have influenced the jury's assessment of her credibility as a witness.

Rule 401 makes evidence relevant if it could make a consequential fact more or less probable, including evidence that may show a witness’s bias.

State v. Martinez · filed 2017-05-16Rule 401

We agree with Defendant that exclusion of this evidence was error. Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2013). Evidence that Mother had accused Defendant of domestic violence could have indicated Mother’s bias against Defendant and may have influenced the jury’s assessment of her credibility as a witness.

Rule 401 makes evidence of a witness’s possible bias relevant when it could affect the jury’s assessment of the witness’s credibility.

 · filed 2017-05-16Rule 401

We agree with Defendant that exclusion of this evidence was error. Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2013). Evidence that Mother had accused Defendant of domestic violence could have indicated Mother’s bias against Defendant and may have influenced the jury’s assessment of her credibility as a witness.

An expert witness’s fees may be relevant under Rule 401 when they could show a motive to favor the party who called the expert.

State v. Coleman · filed 2017-07-18Rule 401

But as to the threshold question of relevance, the fact that an expert witness may have a motive to testify favorably for the party calling him certainly is a “fact of consequence” to the jury’s assessment of that witness’s credibility. Thus, the challenged testimony was relevant and the trial court did not err in overruling Coleman’s relevancy objection.

Rule 401 does not require evidence to prove an element of the charged crime; it is relevant if it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable.

State v. Bennett · filed 2018-05-01Rule 401

However, Rule 401 does not require the evidence prove an element of a crime to be relevant, instead it must have a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable.

Rule 401 treats photographs as relevant when they tend to make a consequential fact more probable by linking a defendant to the weapon, vehicle, and location of a crime.

State v. Dixon · filed 2018-10-02Rule 401

Because this evidence has a “tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable . . . than it would be without the evidence,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2017), and in appropriate deference to the determination made by the trial court, Wallace, 104 N.C. App. at 502, 410 S.E.2d at 228, we hold the trial court did not err in admitting the Gun and Mustang Photos as relevant under Rules 401 and 402.

Under Rule 401, evidence is irrelevant if it does not tend to make a fact of the charged offense more or less probable.

State v. Koke · filed 2019-02-19Rule 401

The evidence of the submerged truck does not have a tendency to make any fact of the charged insurance fraud of failing to disclose major repairs more or less probable. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401. The trial court erred in admitting that evidence.

Rule 401 treats a protective order as relevant when it tends to make a disputed fact about firearm possession more or less likely.

State v. Robinson · filed 2019-02-19Rule 401

The DVPO also has a tendency to rebut Defendant's position that the firearm was his wife's as it made it less likely that she was residing in or had recently been at his home.

Rules 401 and 402 allow testimony to be excluded when it does not bear on a fact at issue.

Rotruck v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Elections · filed 2019-09-03Rules 401 and 402

We agree with Chairman Kimel that what did or did not happen to other Summerfield Town Council members is not relevant to the question of Plaintiff’s residence, and testimony to that effect would therefore be properly excluded.

Rule 401 defines relevant evidence by whether it makes a consequential fact more or less probable; testimony resting on speculation may be excluded.

State v. Peralta · filed 2019-11-05Rule 401

“Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Dunn v. Custer, 162 N.C. App. 259, 266, 591 S.E.2d 11, 17 (2004) (citing N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 ([2017])). ... Thus, because the proffered testimony was too speculative and not within the witnesses’ personal knowledge, the trial court did not err in excluding the testimony.

Rules 401 and 403 permit excluding cross-examination about a witness’s mental health treatment when it has no shown bearing on credibility or its prejudice outweighs its probative value.

State v. Kowalski · filed 2020-02-18Rule 401, Rule 403

Defendant has not shown the trial court committed prejudicial error in ruling the proposed cross-examination was not relevant under Rule 401. To the extent the excluded evidence may have had some relevance, the trial court’s ruling that the proposed testimony was more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403 was not an abuse of discretion.

Rule 401 requires evidence to bear on a fact that matters to the claim; expert testimony about trade secret damages was irrelevant to damages under the parties’ consent order.

SciGrip, Inc. v. Osae · filed 2020-02-28Rule 401

As a result, the ultimate question for our consideration with respect to this issue is whether the proffered evidence had “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401. ... In view of the fact that the consent order constituted an express contract,8 evidence tending to show that Engineered Bonding was unjustly enriched as the result of Mr. Osae’s conduct is simply not relevant to SciGrip’s breach of contract claim given that the consent order here, unlike the contract at issue in Potter, does not contain a provision authorizing the trial court to “determine the appropriate remedy” for any violation of its provisions. Potter, 150 N.C. App. at 334, 564 S.E.2d at 265.

Rule 401 excludes field test results that do not tend to prove a fact consequential to the charged offenses.

State v. Cobb · filed 2020-06-16Rule 401

Evidence regarding the presence of the bag containing white powder was properly admitted, but the testimony regarding the field test should have been excluded, not limited via judicial instruction.

Evidence of a witness’s civil suit against a third party is irrelevant to bias when the criminal defendant’s identity is immaterial to that suit.

State v. Glenn · filed 2020-11-17Rule 401

Defendant’s alleged involvement in the attack was immaterial to the civil suit. Thus, unlike in Hart, Dixon, and Grant, the pendency of the civil suit did not show Mr. Parker’s interest in the outcome of the criminal prosecution and was accordingly not admissible to impeach the witness.

Rule 401 does not make a witness’s immigration status relevant to an abuse allegation without evidence linking that status to a motive to fabricate it.

State v. Lopez · filed 2020-12-01Rule 401

We agree with the trial court’s ruling on relevancy of the evidence and disagree with defendant’s assertions that Jane’s mother’s immigration status “has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence[;]” the fact here being “whether or not any sexual abuse actually occurred.”

Rule 401 does not permit evidence implicating a third party based on mere speculation when it does not also tend to exculpate the defendant.

State v. Abbitt · filed 2021-08-03Rule 401

Defendants were properly prohibited from presenting evidence implicating a ... third party upon mere speculation, and which evidence did not exculpate their guilt.

Rule 401 permits evidence of a defendant’s prior sexual assaults when it is relevant to whether the defendant mistook a physically helpless victim’s actions or inactions for consent.

State v. Rodriguez · filed 2021-11-02Rule 401

Consequently, the trial court did not err in determining Mack’s testimony was relevant pursuant to Rule 401.

Evidence suggesting a third party committed the crime must do more than invite speculation; it must implicate that person and exculpate the defendant.

State v. harris · filed 2021-08-03Rule 401

Defendants were properly prohibited from presenting evidence implicating a ... third party upon mere speculation, and which evidence did not exculpate their guilt.

Rules 401 and 402 allow testimony about a witness’s grief when it helps the jury assess credibility.

State v. McCutcheon · filed 2021-12-21Rules 401 and 402

The testimony was further relevant to the jury’s assessment of Richard’s credibility as a State witness by providing a better understanding of any possible motives or biases. In view of the “great deference” afforded a trial court, the challenged testimony satisfied the low bar of logical relevance to allow admission.

Rules 401 and 404(b) allow photographs of condoms that corroborate a child’s account and show planning or preparation, but exclude a photograph also showing unrelated dildos.

State v. Sheffield · filed 2022-04-05Rule 401; Rule 404(b)

The admission of the photographs of the condoms was not error under Rule 401 or Rule 404(b). ... However, the admission of State’s Exhibit P-21, which is a photograph of the condoms with the dildos, was error under Rule 401 and Rule 404(b).

Rule 401 permits consideration of a prior domestic violence protective order when it is relevant to a current act, including the plaintiff’s fear or the defendant’s purpose.

Keenan v. Keenan · filed 2022-08-16Rule 401

In determining whether to issue a DVPO, the trial court’s consideration of a prior DVPO entered against the defendant is permissible as long as it otherwise constitutes relevant evidence under Rule 401 and is considered alongside at least one current, specific act.

Rules 401 and 402 treat evidence bearing on guilt, access to a weapon, or motive as relevant.

State v. Woodley · filed 2022-11-15Rules 401, 402

The challenged testimony and exhibits were clearly relevant under Rules 401 and 402. They were probative to issues of Defendant’s guilt, Defendant’s opportunity to acquire a weapon, and Defendant’s possible motive for the killing.

Rule 104(b) permits admission of evidence before its relevance is established when later evidence supplies the required connection.

State v. Green · filed 2022-02-15Rule 104(b)

Thus, the State presented evidence connecting the handgun to the charges in this case after the handgun had been admitted into evidence by the trial court. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the handgun before its relevance had been established.

Rule 401 permits evidence that tends to show the defendant’s involvement in the charged shooting.

State v. Saddler · filed 2024-06-18Rule 401

Here, even giving the trial court no deference on its ruling, we conclude that the phone calls were relevant.

Evidence implicating another perpetrator must also be inconsistent with the defendant’s guilt to be relevant and admissible under Rules 401 and 402.

State v. Abbitt and Albarran · filed 2023-09-01Rules 401 and 402

In order to be both relevant and admissible, the evidence at issue here must have simultaneously implicated Phillips and McCain as it exculpated defendants Abbitt and Albarran.

Rule 401 permits footage of a defendant taking a preliminary breath test when the footage makes impairment more probable and the jury is instructed to consider only the defendant’s demeanor and behavior.

State v. Vaughn · filed 2024-12-03Rule 401

The footage itself has a “tendency make the existence of” Defendant’s impairment “more probable” to the jury’s factfinding “than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. R. Evid. 401. Aware of the potential prejudice to Defendant, the trial court on multiple occasions instructed the jury to assess the footage only to determine Defendant’s “demeanor and behavior.” Thus, this Court holds that trial court did not err by admitting the dashcam footage of Defendant’s otherwise inadmissible PBT.

Under Rule 401, a digital scale with marijuana residue is relevant to an impaired driving charge pursued on a theory of appreciable impairment.

State v. Corey · filed 2025-06-18Rule 401

Because the State proceeded on grounds of appreciable impairment, evidence of Defendant’s possession of a digital scale with marijuana residue is relevant under Rule 401.

Rule 401 permits exclusion of an exhibit as irrelevant when no evidence connects it to a consequential fact.

State v. Pride · filed 2026-02-04Rule 401

Given the absence of evidence connecting Defendant and the airsoft gun, the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the exhibit did not make any fact of consequence more or less probable and thus did not err by excluding it as irrelevant.

Rule 401 permits evidence of firearms unrelated to the charged shooting when it helps explain the officers’ conduct during the investigation.

State v. Reid · filed 2026-05-06Rule 401

Nevertheless, even though the two stolen firearms were not used in the Circle K shooting, such evidence was admissible to explain why the “knock and talk” went on “for a while” and why law enforcement detained Jackson, Defendant, and Carr immediately after they exited the apartment.

Rule 401 requires evidence to bear on a question relevant to the defendant’s guilt.

State v. Perry · filed 1984-07-03Rule 401

We fail to see how this evidence is relevant on the question of defendant’s guilt under G.S. 90-95. See G.S. 8C-1, Rule 401. We, therefore, overrule defendants’ contention that the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence constituted prejudicial error.

Rule 407 excludes subsequent remedial measures offered to prove negligence, but a later assessment of whether earlier conduct was safe is not a remedial measure.

Smith v. Pass · filed 1989-09-05Rule 407

For the purpose of showing negligence, Rule 407 excludes evidence of measures taken after an event which would have made the event less likely to occur. There is no evidence that the actions taken by Piedmont on 31 December 1985 were remedial in nature. Testimony of Piedmont’s own president, Ben Davenport (Davenport) reveals that the purpose of their actions was to assess whether Marshall’s activities on 30 December were safe and proper. Thus, 8C-1, Rule 407 is not applicable to this situation.

Section 8C-1, Rule 407, excludes evidence of a subsequent repair offered to establish a causal link essential to proving negligence.

McClain v. Otis Elevator Co., Inc. · filed 1992-04-07Rule 407

Plaintiff’s stated purpose in offering the evidence was to establish the causal link between the alleged improper maintenance by defendant and the injury to Ms. McClain. Such a link was crucial to plaintiff’s proof of negligence. Introduction of evidence of the removal of the brush for this purpose is clearly prohibited by Rule 407.

Rule 407 excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures when the feasibility of precautions, ownership, and control are not contested.

Smith v. DEPT. OF NATURAL RES. & COM. DEV. · filed 1993-12-07Rule 407

We find that the evidence was properly excluded under Rule 407, because the State did not challenge the feasibility of precautionary measures, nor did it contest ownership or control of the area.

Rule 407 excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures when ownership, control, and feasibility are not disputed.

Smith v. N.C. Department of Natural Resources & Community Development · filed 1993-12-07Rule 407

We find that the evidence was properly excluded under Rule 407, because the State did not challenge the feasibility of precautionary measures, nor did it contest ownership or control of the area.

Rule 407 permits evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show feasibility only when feasibility is disputed.

Benton v. Hillcrest Foods, Inc. · filed 1999-12-21Rule 407

Therefore, whether or not it would have been possible to lock the door was not controverted, and evidence that such a measure would have been feasible is not admissible under Rule 407.

Rule 407 restricts evidence of subsequent remedial measures offered to prove culpable conduct, but does not treat postaccident tampering with evidence as a remedial measure.

Maraman v. Cooper Steel Fabricators · filed 2001-11-06Rule 407

We agree with Cooper Steel's general statement of the law as it applies to subsequent repairs or precautions. See N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 407 (1999), and Lane v. Rouse, 135 N.C.App. at 498, 521 S.E.2d at 140 ("when, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event"). However, evidence of subsequent repairs or precautions may be offered for other purposes, such as "proving... feasibility of precautionary measures,... or impeachment." Id. at 498-99, 521 S.E.2d at 140. In any event, moreover, we do not share Cooper Steel's characterization by implication of the evidence as "remedial measures." Rather, the testimony regarding the nocturnal visit to the accident scene by Marlowe and other Cooper Steel employees was more descriptive of obstructing investigation or tampering with evidence.

Rule 407 permits evidence of a subsequent remedial measure to impeach a witness whose testimony it contradicts.

Holland v. French · filed 2020-09-01Rule 407

Exhibit 37 was a subsequent remedial measure under Rule 407, but fell into the exception in Rule 407 as impeachment evidence and was properly admitted under Rules 407 and 401.

Rule 403 permits evidence of prior sexual abuse when the incidents are sufficiently similar and close in time that their probative value outweighs their prejudicial effect.

State v. Faircloth · filed 1990-08-07Rule 403

However, under the applicable precedent, the prior incidents about which A.G. testified were sufficiently similar to the charged crime and were sufficiently near in time to it that Rule 403 did not require the judge to exclude the evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior similar sex offenses against the same victim to show a common scheme or plan.

State v. Hall · filed 1990-04-03Rule 404(b)

Given our courts’ liberal attitude toward admitting evidence of similar sex offenses under Rule 404(b), we find no error in the trial court’s admission of defendant’s prior convictions for taking indecent liberties with the prosecutrix.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior sexual misconduct to show a scheme or plan to molest children.

State v. McCarty · filed 1990-06-13Rule 404(b)

The defendant argues that the purpose for admitting this testimony was to prove his character in order to show he acted in conformity therewith in violation of N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1988). ... Based on the reasoning of these three cases we hold the testimony of the victim’s sister was admissible to show a scheme or plan to molest defendant’s stepdaughter and daughter.

Rule 404(b) bars evidence of a defendant’s prior threat against an unrelated third person when its only purpose is to show a propensity for violence.

State v. Franklin · filed 1990-07-26Rule 404(b)

There was no proper purpose for introducing this prejudicial evidence. The testimony that defendant threatened to kill the woman who had stolen his drugs was impermissible because its only purpose was to show defendant’s propensity for violence.

Rules 403 and 404(b) permit evidence of prior sex offenses to show a plan when the offenses are sufficiently similar and not too remote in time.

State v. Davis · filed 1990-12-18Rules 403 and 404(b)

Therefore, because the defendant’s prior sex offenses are sufficiently similar to those in this case, and because they are not too remote in time, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence under Rules 403 and 404(b).

Rule 608(b) limits cross-examination about misconduct to acts involving truthfulness or untruthfulness and bars extrinsic evidence of those acts to impeach a witness.

State v. Woodard · filed 1991-05-07Rule 608(b)

Rule 608(b) limits the State in its inquiry to types of the defendant’s misconduct, which involve truthfulness or untruthfulness. We note that Rule 608(b) does not allow the use of extrinsic evidence concerning that misconduct to impeach a witness. Adultery is not the type of misconduct which falls under Rule 608(b).

Rule 404(b) permits prior acts evidence offered for a proper purpose when the acts are sufficiently similar and recent, subject to Rule 403’s balance of probative value and prejudicial effect.

State v. West · filed 1991-05-21Rule 404(b)

When prior incidents are offered for a proper purpose, the ultimate test of admissibility is whether they are sufficiently similar and not so remote as to run afoul of the balancing test between probative value and prejudicial effect set out in Rule 403.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of unrelated bad acts offered only to show a defendant’s propensity to act in conformity with them.

State v. Willis · filed 1992-09-04Rule 404(b)

This testimony was not relevant to any issue in this case except the defendant Willis’ character to show that he had a propensity for bad acts and acted in conformity therewith in killing Mr. Richardson. It should not have been admitted.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of sufficiently similar prior sexual misconduct to show a common plan to molest children, including when similar acts continued over several years.

State v. McKinney · filed 1993-06-01Rule 404(b)

The State offered and the trial court admitted the testimony of which defendant complains pursuant to Rule 404(b) as evidence of a common plan or scheme on the part of defendant to win the trust of young girls in order to molest them. ... We hold that the challenged testimony was properly admitted by the trial court as evidence of a common plan on defendant's part to molest young girls.

Rules 404(b) and 403 allow evidence of a defendant’s prior assault on the victim to show malice when the trial court does not abuse its discretion in weighing prejudice against probative value.

State v. Kyle · filed 1993-06-04Rule 404(b); Rule 403

Applying these principles to the case at bar, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting Saul Garcia’s account of the prior assault on the victim under Rule 404(b), nor did it abuse its discretion under Rule 403.

Rules 404(b) and 403 permit evidence of similar prior sexual misconduct to show a common plan when it is not too remote and its probative value outweighs unfair prejudice.

State v. Jacob · filed 1994-02-15Rules 404(b) and 403

Furthermore, the evidence was not violative of N.C.R. Evid. 403. Although the evidence was harmful to defendant’s case, its probative value outweighed the possibility of unfair prejudice. We conclude the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence pursuant to Rules 404(b) and 403.

Rules 404(b) and 608(b) do not permit cross-examination about a defendant’s past affair when it bears neither on truthfulness nor on an element of the charged crimes.

State v. McCarroll · filed 1994-06-17Rule 404(b), Rule 608(b)

We agree with the Court of Appeals that it was error to allow this cross-examination. It was not probative of the witness’ truthfulness or untruthfulness and was not relevant to any element of the crimes for which she was being tried. State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 340 S.E.2d 84 (1986). N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) and Rule 608(b) (1992).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts that tends to show motive.

State v. Moseley · filed 1994-11-03Rule 404(b)

Lastly, the plain language of N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) and our case law clearly support the admission of evidence of prior acts tending to show motive.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s prior assault on a murder victim to show malice, intent, premeditation, deliberation, or ill will toward the victim.

State v. Alston · filed 1995-09-08Rule 404(b)

We therefore hold that the evidence of defendant’s prior assault on the victim was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Evidence of a prior act may be admitted under Rule 404(b) to show motive, intent, or plan when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

State v. Robinson · filed 1997-07-24Rule 404(b)

Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the evidence was relevant and that the probative value of the Rule 404(b) evidence was not outweighed by the possibility of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s prior assault on a murder victim to show intent to kill.

State v. Allen · filed 1997-07-24Rule 404(b)

We conclude that, in this case, the prior assault on the victim is relevant to show defendant’s “intent” to kill his wife. Therefore, this evidence was properly admitted by the trial court.