N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts when it tends to show intent.

Russell v. Buchanan · filed 1998-05-19Rule 404(b)

Buchanan’s statement regarding a sexual relationship with a prior employee could suggest an intent to sexually prey on female subordinates, and as such was properly admitted by the trial court.

Rule 404(b) requires courts to assess the age of prior acts in light of the purpose for which the evidence is offered; a time lapse may affect weight rather than admissibility.

State v. Hipps · filed 1998-07-09Rule 404(b)

Remoteness for purposes of 404(b) must be considered in light of the specific facts of each case and the purposes for which the evidence is being offered. ... In this case we conclude that the time lapse between the crimes goes to the weight of evidence, not to its admissibility.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior assault to prove identity when the earlier act and the charged offense are sufficiently similar.

State v. Gary · filed 1998-07-09Rule 404(b)

The evidence that defendant had assaulted the victim by throwing a hammer at her and the evidence that her death resulted from blows to the head most likely caused by a hammer are sufficiently similar for the evidence of the prior assault to be admissible to show identity under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior crime to show a common plan when the crimes are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Allred · filed 1998-10-06Rule 404(b)

In view of these similarities, we conclude that the evidence was properly admitted under Rule 404(b) to establish defendant’s modus operandi.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior violent conduct to show motive and identity when it helps explain the charged crime.

State v. White · filed 1998-12-31Rule 404(b)

We hold that evidence relating to this episode is also admissible under Rule 404(b) to show identity and motive, namely, retaliation for Patricia’s resistance to defendant’s forceful control.

Rule 404(b) does not require a prior act and the charged crime to have a unique or bizarre similarity before evidence of the prior act may be admitted.

State v. Thomas · filed 1999-05-07Rule 404(b)

We note first that the similarity between a prior crime or act and the charged crime need not “rise to the level of the unique and bizarre” in order for the evidence to be admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of a prior assault offered only to show a defendant's propensity for violence.

State v. Elliott · filed 2000-04-04Rule 404(b)

In this case, the evidence of Defendant's prior assault on Vereen in 1994 does show his disposition to indulge in that kind of conduct and consequently makes it more probable that he is guilty of the current assault charges. This, however, is not a proper purpose, within the meaning of Rule 404(b), and thus cannot support its admissibility.

Rule 404(b) permits a prior alcohol-related driving conviction to show malice in a second-degree murder prosecution arising from impaired driving.

State v. Gray · filed 2000-04-04Rule 404(b)

More specifically, North Carolina courts consistently have held that evidence of prior acts and convictions are admissible under Rule 404(b) as evidence of malice to support a second-degree murder charge. ... Therefore, defendant’s conviction of an alcohol-related driving offense pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.3 was admissible for the purpose of establishing malice.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant's past failure to provide proper care for a child to show intent in a child abuse case.

State v. Fritsch · filed 2000-04-07Rule 404(b)

We hold that defendant's past incidents of her failure to provide proper care for the victim are relevant and admissible to show intent.

Rule 404(b) permits prior speeding convictions to show knowledge and disregard of consequences relevant to malice in a second-degree murder prosecution.

State v. Rich · filed 2000-04-07Rule 404(b)

Because the State offered the evidence to show that defendant knew and acted with a total disregard of the consequences, which is relevant to show malice, the provisions of Rule 404(b) were not violated.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior acts to show motive, intent, plan, or absence of mistake when the acts remain probative despite the time between them.

State v. Brooks · filed 2000-06-06Rule 404(b)

Likewise, in the case at bar, we find that the time between defendant’s assault of his first wife and his second wife was not so remote as to make his first wife’s testimony inadmissible.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of past mistreatment to show intent in a child abuse case when the evidence is relevant to an issue other than propensity.

State v. Clark · filed 2000-06-20Rule 404(b)

Our courts have consistently held that past incidents of mistreatment are admissible to show intent in a child abuse case. ... Here, since the defendant was charged with felony child abuse, her treatment of Budde was at issue and thus relevant.

Rule 404(b) permits prior driving convictions to show that a defendant knew the danger of his conduct and acted with malice.

State v. Miller · filed 2001-03-20Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s introduction of defendant’s prior crimes to establish that defendant acted with the malice necessary to convict him of second-degree murder.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior misconduct to show motive, intent, or identity when the incidents are sufficiently similar and the evidence is not unduly prejudicial.

State v. Lytch · filed 2001-04-03Rule 404(b)

While evidence of defendant's prior misconduct may not be admitted to show that he has the propensity to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged, State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990), such evidence may be admitted to show defendant's "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, [or] identity." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1999). ... The closeness in both geography and time, the similar nature of the assault, and the connection between the bullets found at both scenes present sufficient similarities for the evidence's admissibility. We hold that the evidence was relevant and did not unduly prejudice defendant.

Section 8C-1 permits evidence of prior sexual acts to show purpose or intent when the acts are sufficiently similar and their probative value is not outweighed by prejudice under Rule 403.

State v. Beckham · filed 2001-07-17Rule 404(b)

Thus, the evidence of prior sexual acts by defendant was offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b). ... Accordingly, we conclude that the lapse of time between the defendant’s sexual acts in the instant case goes to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility.

Rule 404(b) permits prior DWI convictions to show malice when they demonstrate that the defendant knew his driving was reckless and dangerous to human life.

State v. Woodard · filed 2001-09-04Rule 404(b)

Under Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, evidence of other crimes or wrongful acts by a defendant may be used to demonstrate malice. ... Defendant’s past DWI convictions tended to ... “demonstrate that defendant was aware that his conduct leading up to the collision at issue here was reckless and inherently dangerous to human life” and thus were properly admitted and included in the jury instructions at trial.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual misconduct when the acts are sufficiently similar to and not too remote from the charged offense.

State v. Carpenter · filed 2001-12-04Rule 404(b)

The prior acts admitted into evidence are not too remote in time since they occurred within two years of the incidents for which defendant is currently charged. Since the alleged sexual offenses committed against Bobby in this case are sufficiently similar and because the prior acts are not too remote in time, we hold that Quentin Holton’s and Thomas Williams’ testimonies were properly admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) does not require the State to disclose other-acts evidence before trial.

State v. Anthony · filed 2001-12-18Rule 404(b)

We find no support for defendant’s assertions that disclosure of Rule 404(b) evidence is required by North Carolina law, nor does defendant refer to any.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior drug activity and the resulting convictions to prove intent and knowledge when the evidence is sufficiently similar and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Wilkerson · filed 2002-02-05Rule 404(b)

Evidence of defendant's prior drug convictions was highly probative to establish intent and knowledge. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of defendant's prior drug activity nor in admitting the fact that defendant was convicted for said drug activity.

Rule 404(b) permits prior driving convictions to prove malice in a vehicular second-degree murder case, but convictions too remote to be probative should be excluded.

State v. Goodman · filed 2002-03-05Rule 404(b)

As discussed in detail in section I of this opinion, prior driving convictions are a proper means of establishing the malice element of second degree murder, and such admission does not violate Rule 404(b). ... We agree with defendant that some of the convictions contained in his driving record, dating back to 1962, are too remote in time to be probative of defendant's malice in the crime at issue. We therefore hold the trial court erred in admitting defendant's entire driving record.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior crime to prove intent when the crime is sufficiently similar and not too remote, excluding time spent in prison when assessing remoteness.

State v. Castor · filed 2002-05-07Rule 404(b)

We hold the evidence of defendant’s 1971 shooting of Pearl Walker was not so remote in time, nine years excluding the eighteen years defendant was imprisoned, as to render it inadmissible.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar sexual acts to show identity, opportunity, or a common plan or scheme.

State v. Brothers · filed 2002-06-18Rule 404(b)

The trial court did not err in permitting the testimony of S.S. pursuant to Rule 404(b) to show identity, a pattern of opportunity, and a common plan or scheme to commit sexual abuses against his stepdaughters.

Rule 404(b) requires sufficient similarity between prior acts and the charged crime before evidence of those acts may be admitted.

State v. Al-Bayyinah · filed 2002-08-16Rule 404(b)

In sum, the Rule 404(b) evidence in the present case rested on questionable identification procedures, which in turn arose from robberies that were factually dissimilar to the robbery and murder charged in the instant case. The trial court therefore erred, under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in admitting Splitt’s testimony under Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of earlier sexual misconduct for a proper purpose when the acts are sufficiently similar and their probative value is not outweighed by prejudice.

State v. Love · filed 2002-09-03Rule 404(b)

When the evidence is offered for a proper purpose, the ultimate test of admissibility is whether the incidents are sufficiently similar to those in the case at bar and not so remote in time as to be more prejudicial than probative under the Rule 403 test. ... The record in this case shows that the alleged sexual acts that occurred to the minor female and her mother although separated by a long period were strikingly similar.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar sexual misconduct to show a common plan when the incidents are sufficiently similar and satisfy Rule 403 balancing.

State v. Every · filed 2003-04-15Rule 404(b)

Here, the State proffered the evidence for the purposes of establishing modus operandi, common plan or scheme and the absence of mistake. The evidence tended to show that defendant followed a similar pattern of communications in order to persuade or coerce adolescent female karate students into engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with him. ... On this record, we cannot say as a matter of law that the trial court's decision could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Rule 404(b) evidence of a prior incident must be sufficiently similar to the incident at issue and remains subject to Rule 403’s relevance and balancing requirements.

State v. Nance · filed 2003-05-06Rule 404(b)

To be admissible under Rule 404(b), evidence of a prior crime or incident must be sufficiently similar to the incident at issue. ... Even if evidence is sufficiently similar to be admissible under Rule 404(b), it is nevertheless subject to the relevancy requirements and balancing test of Rule 403.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior acts to show plan, motive, intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake, subject to similarity and temporal proximity.

State v. Perry · filed 2003-07-15Rule 404(b)

Rule 404(b) of the N.C. Rules of Evidence allows for the admission of evidence of prior acts to show defendant’s plan, motive, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake. ... The rule of inclusion of evidence under Rule 404(b) is “constrained by the requirements of similarity and temporal proximity.” ... Defendant’s treatment of Martin’s daughter was similar to the evidence the State presented of defendant’s treatment and actions with regard to Rose.

Rule 404(b) allows evidence of prior acts to show malice when the incidents are sufficiently similar to have probative value; they need not be identical.

State v. Locklear · filed 2003-08-05Rule 404(b)

Rule 404(b)of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence does not require that these prior incidents be exactly the same in order to have probative value. ... We conclude that the circumstances of the 1996 driving while impaired arrest were sufficiently similar so as to have probative value.

Rule 404(b) allows evidence of prior conduct tending to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, or knowledge.

State v. Ingram · filed 2003-09-02Rule 404(b)

Under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 404(b), testimony tending to show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, or knowledge is admissible. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404 (2001). The line of questioning at issue tended to make such a showing, and was more relevant and probative than unduly prejudicial.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence suggesting prior misconduct when it helps prove an element of a charged offense rather than merely showing propensity.

State v. Moore · filed 2004-01-20Rule 404(b)

Under Rule 404, “even though evidence may tend to show other crimes, wrongs, or acts by the defendant and his propensity to commit them, it is admissible under Rule 404(b) so long as it also is relevant for some purpose other than to show that defendant has the propensity for the type of conduct for which he is being tried.” ... As the challenged testimony was admissible to help establish the elements of the charged crimes, we conclude the trial court did not err in admitting Deputy Spring’s testimony.

Rule 404(b) permits exclusion of prior misconduct evidence when it risks suggesting that a person acted in conformity with that misconduct.

Di Frega v. Pugliese · filed 2004-06-01Rule 404(b)

Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to show that a defendant “acted in conformity therewith.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2003). This evidence could have raised “a legally spurious presumption of guilt” against Martha Edwards in violation of Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior abuse to show that a victim's will was overcome when lack of consent is at issue, if the incidents are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Chappell · filed 2004-07-06Rule 404(b)

Although the previous incidents in the summer of 2001 and March 2002 were not committed in the exact same manner as the alleged assault and rape in this case, enough similarities between the incidents existed so that we are unable to say that the trialcourt erred by admitting this evidence. ... In addition, we hold that the two events were sufficiently proximate in time to be probative.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual acts to show a common pattern or plan when its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

State v. Crisostomo · filed 2004-09-21Rule 404(b)

Although several of the past acts allegedly took place as early as 1996, the trial court properly determined the evidence of defendant's sexual advances established a common pattern or plan and were admissible under Rule 404(b). The trial court further determined that the probative value of such evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. We will not disturb the trial court's ruling, and defendant's assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s prior altercation with the victim to show motive or ill-will.

State v. Santiago · filed 2004-12-07Rule 404(b)

Defendant's prior altercation with the man he later shot could be indicative of his motive and ill-will, which is admissible evidence under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior acts to show intent, plan, or knowledge, subject to Rule 403’s prejudice balancing.

Head v. Head · filed 2004-12-07Rule 404(b)

On these facts, the trial court properly concluded that the challenged testimony was relevant in determining whether plaintiff had abused defendant and J.H., especially with regards to plaintiff's formulation of intent and a plan to inflict abuse in a manner that left no visible marks, as well as his knowledge of how to do so.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar, recent prior drug transactions for a proper purpose, subject to Rule 403’s limit on unfair prejudice.

State v. Houston · filed 2005-04-05Rule 404(b)

The similarities between the charged offense and the prior transactions testified to by Davis are numerous. Defendant and Davis were parties to both the charged transaction and the prior ones; the prior transactions primarily involved sales of cocaine; on at least eight occasions the same amount of cocaine was purchased from defendant as was purchased on 4 March 2002 for the same price and the majority of the previous transactions occurred in the same location (the parking lot of defendant’s apartment) as the charged offense. Additionally, the last transaction prior to the charged offense was conducted only approximately four months prior to the date of this offense. Based upon the foregoing, we find that the evidence was admitted for a proper purpose and that the trial court did not act arbitrarily in allowing Davis’ testimony regarding the prior drug transactions.

Rule 404(b) does not make hearsay statements about prior sexual misconduct admissible to show a defendant’s intent, motive, or plan.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2005-04-05Rule 404(b)

In addition, the testimony of Odom and Potter in these instances was inadmissible for substantive purposes because the statements were hearsay that were not admissible under any of the hearsay exceptions. ... These statements regarding defendant’s prior sexual misconduct are therefore inadmissible to show defendant’s intent, motive or plan to commit the crime because they are hearsay statements.

Rule 404(b) permits sufficiently similar prior drug incidents to show intent and knowledge; remoteness carries less weight when the evidence serves those purposes.

State v. Stevenson · filed 2005-04-19Rule 404(b)

Moreover, remoteness is a less significant factor in determining Rule 404(b) admissibility when the prior acts go to prove something other than a common plan or scheme, such as knowledge or intent. ... The 1996 and 1997 incidents were thus not too remote to be admissible.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior threats to show motive, intent, plan, common scheme, and identity when the threats are connected to the charged offense.

State v. Curmon · filed 2005-07-19Rule 404(b)

Here, defendant’s statement that if someone did not call him back he was going to “burn you all up,” was admissible to prove a number of the listed purposes, namely defendant’s motive, intent, plan, common scheme, as well as defendant’s identity as the arsonist.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual misconduct to show intent or a continuing plan when repeated similar acts make earlier conduct relevant despite the passage of time.

State v. Locklear · filed 2005-08-02Rule 404(b)

Evidence of prior acts of sexual misconduct may be admissible to show the defendant’s intent, motive, or plan to commit the crime charged. ... M.L.’s testimony concerning defendant’s actions towards her when she was a child illustrate a continuing pattern of sexual abuse and an intent to commit incest with M.L. during the same approximate age defendant began to molest V.L.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a sufficiently similar prior sexual assault to show modus operandi, a common plan or scheme, intent, or knowledge.

State v. Moore · filed 2005-10-04Rule 404(b)

We conclude these two incidents were sufficiently similar for Rule 404(b) purposes. The fact that one of the incidents occurred in a motel room and the other in the woods does not change our analysis. Indeed, in both cases, defendant lured an acquaintance to a location where they would be alone in order to either use or purchase drugs. Once they were alone, defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the women, against their will, and placed his hand on their necks during the encounter. This evidence was admissible to show modus operandi, common plan or scheme, intent, and knowledge.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of conduct underlying a prior conviction for a proper purpose, but bars admission of the bare fact of a non-testifying defendant’s conviction.

State v. McCoy · filed 2005-10-18Rule 404(b)

While the trial court properly admitted Officer Wall’s testimony under Rule 404(b), it erred in admitting the evidence of defendant’s prior conviction pursuant to Rule 404(b). As in Wilkerson, the bare fact of a non-testifying defendant’s prior conviction was admitted and published to the jury under Rule 404(b) after testimony had been elicited to establish the factual basis underlying that conviction. Because we are unable to distinguish this case from Wilkerson, we conclude that the trial court committed prejudicial error entitling defendant to a new trial.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence about prior offenses to prove intent and knowledge, but not testimony establishing the convictions themselves for that purpose; admitting the convictions can be harmless if the defendant later testifies and is properly cross-examined under Rule 609(a).

State v. Renfro · filed 2005-11-15Rule 404(b)

The evidence pertaining to the underlying facts and circumstances of defendant's prior convictions for possession with intent to manufacture, sell and deliver cocaine were properly admitted under Rule 404(b) and the trial court properly gave a limiting instruction to the jury. While the testimony of the deputy clerk was inadmissible under Rule 404(b), the error was rendered harmless when defendant testified and was properly cross-examined about the convictions pursuant to Rule 609(a).

Rule 404(b) permits a prior impaired-driving conviction to show malice in a second-degree murder prosecution, even when the conviction is nine years old.

State v. Westbrook · filed 2005-12-20Rule 404(b)

Under our caselaw, “prior driving convictions of a defendant are admissible to show malice, and the showing of malice in a second-degree murder case is a proper purpose within the meaning of Rule 404(b).” ... Thus, this contention is without merit.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act to show a witness’s motive for untruthfulness rather than conformity with the prior act.

State v. Brown · filed 2006-04-18Rule 404(b)

We agree. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2005), evidence of prior bad acts or crimes is admissible for purposes other than to prove a witness’s conformity with the prior act. Such evidence is admissible to show, inter alia, the witness’s motive.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a sufficiently similar prior drug offense to show intent to sell when admitted for that limited purpose.

State v. Carpenter · filed 2006-08-01Rule 404(b)

The trial court reasonably concluded that the circumstances of the defendant's prior conviction were substantially similar to the current charges and that the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) for the limited purpose of showing the intent of the defendant.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior violence toward a victim to show intent to harm or absence of accident.

State v. Parmaei · filed 2006-11-07Rule 404(b)

Christiane’s testimony was admissible to prove either defendant’s intent to harm Meg or an absence of accident.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to show intent when its relevance goes beyond showing criminal propensity.

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

The evidence was relevant to show defendant’s intent because the State contended defendant shot at the car either intending to shoot Massey’s friends, or believing Massey to be the passenger. ... Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion admitting testimony concerning each of the incidents.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to establish identity or absence of mistake, including testimony about prior police contact that explains an officer’s identification of a defendant.

State v. Swinton · filed 2007-02-20Rule 404(b)

Indeed, Rule 404(b) allows evidence of other acts as proof of identity or absence of mistake. Accordingly, the State argues the trial court did not commit plain error by allowing the officers' testimony. We agree with the State and conclude Defendant's argument is without merit.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior conduct to prove malice for second-degree murder when offered to show the defendant’s mental state rather than propensity.

State v. Hayes · filed 2007-06-05Rule 404(b)

Rather, the trial court admitted the evidence of defendant’s prior conduct for the purpose of showing defendant had the malice required to commit second-degree murder. Because the trial court admitted evidence of defendant’s prior conduct for the purpose of showing a requisite mental state, the trial court did not err.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of a prior crime offered to show intent when the offenses share only characteristics common to crimes of that type.

State v. Carpenter · filed 2007-06-28Rule 404(b)

When the State’s efforts to show similarities between crimes establish no more than “characteristics inherent to most” crimes of that type, the State has “failed to show... that sufficient similarities existed” for the purposes of Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior crime to prove identity when use of the same firearm supports a reasonable inference that the same person committed both crimes.

State v. Brockett · filed 2007-08-07Rule 404(b)

Judge Sumner properly ruled that the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts for a proper purpose when the acts are sufficiently similar to the charged conduct.

State v. HENGSTENBERG · filed 2007-10-02Rule 404(b)

In light of the facts discussed above regarding the prior incidents, we cannot discern that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the prior conviction and bad act pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Rule 404(b) does not bar a photograph used solely to illustrate testimony rather than as evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts.

State v. Lender · filed 2007-10-02Rule 404(b)

As for defendant's 404(b) challenge, the record indicates the photo was introduced solely to illustrate the officers' testimony, not as substantive evidence of any bad acts by defendant.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual misconduct to show a common plan or scheme when the acts are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Poteat · filed 2007-12-18Rule 404(b)

We conclude that Defendant's conduct with B.B. and T.B. was sufficiently similar and proximate in time to support the admission of T.B.'s testimony under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior sexual act to show a common scheme or plan when the acts are sufficiently similar, despite a thirteen-year gap.

State v. Caudill · filed 2008-01-15Rule 404(b)

The situations are sufficiently similar within the bounds of Rule 404(b) such that the prior incident, showing a common scheme and plan of intent, is admissible despite the passage of thirteen years, and is not too remote.

Rule 404(b) does not permit admission of prior convictions when substantial testimony about the underlying acts leaves the convictions with little probative value for a permissible purpose.

State v. Bowman · filed 2008-02-19Rule 404(b)

Although North Carolina is liberal in its inclusion of prior sexual offenses for 404(b) purposes, we find in the instant case there is little probative value in defendant’s prior convictions for any 404(b) purpose since there was significant testimony regarding the facts underlying defendant’s prior convictions.' Thus, we conclude that the admission of defendant’s prior convictions under Rule 404(b) was error.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior domestic violence against the victim to show lack of consent when consent is disputed.

State v. Daniels · filed 2008-04-15Rule 404(b)

We hold the evidence was admitted for proper purposes under Rule 404(b) and that the trial court gave the jury a proper limiting instruction as to this evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant’s acts of domestic violence against Lane.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior conduct to prove motive, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake.

State v. Cousar · filed 2008-06-03Rule 404(b)

The evidence of defendant’s prior conduct was admissible under N.C. R. Evid. 404(b) to prove motive, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake, and we cannot say that its admission or the limiting instructions were erroneous or influenced the jury such that, without them, a different verdict would have been reached.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual misconduct when the incidents are sufficiently similar and close in time to support a permitted purpose.

State v. Suggs · filed 2008-07-01Rule 404(b)

Considering the temporal proximity of the two incidents and defendant's proclivity for a specific sexual act to the exclusion of another with women he considered to be prostitutes, we conclude the previous incident was sufficiently similar to be admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a sufficiently similar prior act to show identity, malice, or method of operation.

State v. Rios · filed 2008-07-15Rule 404(b)

Based upon these similarities, there was no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence for the limited purposes of showing identity, malice, and method of operation.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a similar prior break-in to show intent to commit the charged burglary.

State v. Martin · filed 2008-08-05Rule 404(b)

Additionally, the similarity between this act and the prior act also shows intent. Here, defendant was convicted of attempted first degree burglary. His prior act helped establish that had Mrs. Rickman not caught him, defendant intended to burglarize the home. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of sufficiently similar prior drug sales to show intent, identity, or a common plan or scheme.

State v. Welch · filed 2008-10-07Rule 404(b)

In sum, after careful review, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the challenged evidence under Rule 404(b) for the limited purpose of showing defendant’s intent, identity, and common plan or scheme.

Rule 404(b) requires a case-specific assessment of an older conviction’s probative value; no fixed age makes it inadmissible.

State v. Maready · filed 2008-12-12Rule 404(b)

The probative value (and thus the admissibility) of 404(b) evidence must be determined on a case-by-case basis rather than through application of a fixed temporal maximum.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of a defendant's prior arrest when it establishes no fact relevant to guilt beyond criminal propensity.

State v. FAULISE · filed 2009-05-05Rule 404(b)

As a result, in order to elicit admissible evidence, the prosecutor's questions concerning Defendant's prior arrest would have had to have established some fact relevant to the issue of Defendant's guilt other than his propensity to engage in criminal activity. Although the prosecutor evidently believed that the evidence of Defendant's prior arrest was relevant to impeach Joseph Faulise's testimony that he did not know what to do when he got a phone call that Defendant had been arrested, the fact that Defendant had been previously arrested did not, standing alone, have any impeaching value. As a result, the trial court, after initially ruling the other way, properly sustained Defendant's objection to the prosecutor's attempt to inquire into Joseph Faulise's knowledge of Defendant's prior arrest.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of a prior lawsuit offered to show a defendant’s pattern of negligent conduct.

Gray v. Allen · filed 2009-06-02Rule 404(b)

Under Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of. Evidence, evidence of a prior instance of similar conduct may not be introduced in order to show a pattern of conduct by a defendant.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of a prior act when its similarities to the charged offense are minor and generic and it serves only to show propensity.

State v. Strickland · filed 2009-08-18Rule 404(b)

The differences between the two incidents were significant, while the similarities used by the trial court were minor and generic. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the 2005 incident under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual abuse to show a common plan when the acts are strikingly similar, even if decades separate them.

State v. Hairston · filed 2009-09-15Rule 404(b)

Likewise in this case, although the prior acts of sexual abuse alleged by the three female witnesses occurred between twenty-seven and thirty-seven years prior to the beginning of the charged conduct in the present case, we hold the gap between the acts to be not too remote in time due to the striking similarities between the victims' ages, their relationship with Defendant, and his pattern of abuse.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior assault on a murder victim to show motive, malice, hatred, ill-will and intent when the evidence is probative for those purposes.

State v. Graham · filed 2009-10-06Rule 404(b)

Here, the trial court admitted evidence of the 1995 assault for the purposes of showing motive, malice, hatred, ill-will and intent. As discussed above, this evidence had probative value for all of these purposes and was properly admissible.

Rule 404(b) does not require other crimes, wrongs, or acts to precede the charged offense.

State v. Mobley · filed 2009-11-03Rule 404(b)

Indeed, under the plain language of the rule, there is no requirement that the crimes, wrongs, or acts occur prior to the charged offenses, only that they are “other” crimes, wrongs, or acts.

Rule 404(b) permits a victim’s prior convictions to corroborate testimony about the victim’s violent past, even though they cannot be used to show that the victim acted in conformity with that character.

State v. Jacobs · filed 2010-03-12Rule 404(b)

Although they would be inadmissible under Rule 404(b) merely “to prove the character of [the victim] in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith,” these convictions serve the separate purpose of corroborating defendant’s testimony that the victim was a violent person who had been incarcerated. Accordingly, their admission is not precluded by Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) excludes remote DWI convictions offered to show malice when the intervening driving record does not establish a clear and consistent pattern of criminality.

State v. Davis · filed 2010-11-16Rule 404(b)

We therefore ... hold that the admission of evidence concerning Defendant’s 1989 and 1990 convictions for DWI was error; however, the admission of Defendant’s DWI conviction from 2006 was not error because it was within the general time frame set forth in Miller, and affirmed by Goodman and Maready.

Rule 404(b) bars prior bad acts evidence offered to prove propensity; an unobjected reference that arises in witness narratives and causes minimal prejudice does not amount to plain error.

State v. Cole · filed 2011-01-04Rule 404(b)

We agree that the questioned testimony was not admitted for one of the proper purposes specified by Rule 404(b), but the admission of the testimony does not rise to the level of plain error. The evidence was not offered to prove defendant’s character in order to show that he acted in conformity with that character; the context shows that the evidence was not elicited by the prosecution, but, instead, the evidence simply emerged as part of the witnesses’ narrative. Without an objection, neither the trial court nor the jury had any reason to focus on the information, and the likelihood of any resulting prejudice was minimal. Accordingly, we hold that it was not plain error for the trial court to admit this evidence.

Rule 404(b) requires courts to consider the time between offenses when deciding whether to admit evidence of a prior bad act.

State v. Gray · filed 2011-04-05Rule 404(b)

We find that a thorough review of our Supreme Court’s decisions supports considering the length of time between offenses when determining whether to admit at trial prior bad act evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to show a defendant’s knowledge of the dangers of fleeing police.

State v. Pierce · filed 2011-10-18Rule 404(b)

Because Rule 404(b) specifically allows evidence of prior acts to show knowledge, and because the evidence admitted in this case tends to show Pierce’s knowledge of the dangers of flight from police, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence of Pierce’s prior flight from police.

Rule 404(b) requires sufficient similarity and temporal proximity before evidence of a prior act may be admitted for a permitted purpose.

State v. Glenn · filed 2012-04-17Rule 404(b)

Given the differences in the two instances, as well as the remoteness in time of the incident with Moore, we find the admission of the evidence was error.

Whether evidence falls within Rule 404(b) is reviewed de novo; when the trial court makes findings, the evidence must support those findings and the findings must support its conclusions.

State v. Beckelheimer · filed 2012-06-14Rule 404(b)

When the trial court has made findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its 404(b) ruling, as it did here, we look to whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the conclusions. We review de novo the legal conclusion that the evidence is, or is not, within the coverage of Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of a prior shooting to prove intent or knowledge when its slight probative value is outweighed by undue prejudice.

State v. Flood · filed 2012-06-19Rule 404(b)

We hold that the facts surrounding the 1994 shooting were not admissible to prove intent or knowledge in the 2007 shooting. ... With respect to knowledge and intent, the probative value of the facts surrounding the 1994 shooting was outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. N.C.R. Evid. 403.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of sufficiently similar prior sexual acts to show a common plan when the acts are not too remote in time.

State v. Barnett · filed 2012-11-20Rule 404(b)

In this case, we hold that the prior acts with T.L. are sufficiently similar to the charged offense. ... The prior offenses and the charged offense are also not too remote. ... We hold that the trial court properly admitted T.L.’s testimony to show a common plan.

Rule 404(b) does not exclude a witness’s description of someone wielding a machete as character evidence because wielding a machete is not a character trait.

State v. Sessoms · filed 2013-04-02Rule 404(b)

Mr. Jason Griffin’s statement was not “character evidence” pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 8C-1, Rule 404(b), but rather his description of what he saw and his reason for calling for help; wielding a machete is not a character trait.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior drug sales to show knowledge and intent when the sales are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Sevilla-Briones · filed 2014-10-07Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, as in Houston, we conclude that the prior sales were sufficiently similar and not too remote in time to show Defendant’s knowledge and intent to sell methamphetamine.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior crimes to show a common plan when unusual facts make those crimes sufficiently similar to the charged crime.

State v. Luckey · filed 2014-10-07Rule 404(b)

The trial court found, and we agree, that present in each robbery on 24 September 2007 and 8 October 2010 are unusual facts that are sufficiently similar to the robbery occurring 1 November 2010 to satisfy the similarity component of Rule 404(b).

Rules 404(b) and 403 permit prior audit results in an attorney discipline hearing when they bear on intent and a pattern of misconduct and their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or needless cumulative evidence.

The North Carolina State Bar v. Adams · filed 2015-03-03Rules 403 and 404(b)

Accordingly, we hold ... that the DHC did not violate Rule 404(b) in admitting this evidence. ... Accordingly, we hold that the DHC did not violate Rule 403 in admitting this evidence.

Rule 404(b) forbids using evidence of a prior act to argue that a defendant has a propensity to commit the charged offense, even when the evidence was admitted for a permitted purpose.

State v. Reed · filed 2016-08-16Rule 404(b)

Considering the argument as a whole, the prosecution clearly used the evidence of Sadie's death far beyond the purposes for which the trial court admitted the evidence and essentially argued that defendant has a propensity to leave two-year-old girls unattended, resulting in death by drowning; this is the use forbidden by Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior arson to show intent when unusual similarities make it relevant to the charged arson.

State v. Wilson-Angeles · filed 2017-02-07Rule 404(b)

Reviewing those similarities here, we conclude the unusual facts of the two incidents are sufficiently similar to be admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior offense to prove motive, knowledge, common plan or scheme, or identity when the offenses are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Bradley · filed 2017-05-02Rule 404(b)

Considering the similarities and temporal proximity, we hold the trial court did not err in determining the evidence was proper under Rule 404(b) as proof of motive, knowledge, common plan or scheme, or identity.

Rule 404(b) permits prior-act evidence offered to prove knowledge when the defendant's denial of awareness makes knowledge a material issue.

State v. Williams · filed 2017-05-16Rule 404(b)

We first address whether evidence of the prior incident was properly admitted as circumstantial proof of defendant's knowledge. ... defendant's position at trial-that he was not aware of the rifle and pistol-made his guilty knowledge a material fact in issue.

Rule 404(b) permits testimony about a defendant’s reputation when it explains how a witness became familiar with the defendant’s appearance for identification purposes.

State v. Weldon · filed 2018-02-20Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, as Officer Williams’s testimony explained the circumstances under which he had become familiar with defendant over the course of two months, his testimony was relevant for a purpose other than to establish defendant’s character. Thus, Officer Williams’s testimony was not impermissible character evidence under Rule 404(b), and the trial court did not err by failing to exclude it.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior sexual assault when unusual similarities between the incidents support its admission, even if the sexual acts differ.

State v. Everett · filed 2019-02-19Rule 404(b)

To be sure, as Everett correctly notes, the particular sexual acts in the incidents differed, but "near identical circumstances are not required" and we hold that the unusual facts here are sufficiently similar to permit admission under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual assaults to show a common plan when the acts are sufficiently similar, including when the defendant gained and abused each victim’s trust.

State v. Pabon · filed 2020-10-06Rule 404(b)

Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding the testimony was sufficiently similar because the evidence tended to show that in each circumstance the victim trusted Defendant and Defendant then abused this position of trust to assault each woman.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar sexual offenses against a victim’s sibling when it tends to show intent, motive, or an ongoing plan.

State v. Fabian · filed 2022-12-06Rule 404(b)

The State’s evidence tended to show Defendant had committed similar sexual offenses against the victim’s older sister, T.C., and evidence presented tended to show the sexual offenses against T.C. occurred in the presence of S.F.C. ... Defendant has failed to demonstrate Rule 404(b) error, much less plain error.

Rule 404(b) requires courts to consider similarity and temporal proximity when deciding whether to admit evidence of prior acts.

State v. Massey · filed 2023-01-17Rule 404(b)

Although we find the challenged text message evidence is admissible, we reject the State’s arguments on appeal that similarity and temporal connection are not necessary requirements to admit evidence under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act when it is sufficiently similar and close in time to the charged conduct and is offered for a purpose other than showing propensity.

State v. Jones · filed 2023-03-21Rule 404(b)

The past breaking and entering incident was sufficiently similar and temporally proximate to the charged conduct, and the State introduced it for a permissible purpose. As a result the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence of the past incident on Rule 404(b) grounds.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts when it is relevant to motive, intent, manner, or a common scheme rather than propensity.

State v. Martin · filed 2024-02-20Rule 404(b)

Because Defendant’s conduct was admissible as proof of motive, intent, manner, and common scheme, Brandy’s testimony was relevant for a purpose other than showing Defendant’s propensity for violence. ... Accordingly, the trial court did not err by admitting the evidence under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to show a common plan or scheme when the acts are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Lopez · filed 2024-08-06Rule 404(b)

Based on the similarity of the allegations and the temporal proximity, we conclude that the trial court admitted S.M.’s testimony regarding Defendant’s uncharged acts for a proper purpose pursuant to Rule 404(b): to show a common plan or scheme.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior violent acts that helps establish the context of a charged crime and the defendant’s motive or intent.

State v. Ervin · filed 2025-04-02Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, all three requirements for evidence to be admissible under Rule 404(b) were met, and the trial court did not err by admitting the evidence of Defendant’s prior violent acts toward Akira under Rule 404(b).

The admission of Rule 404(b) evidence does not warrant reversal when the defendant cannot show a reasonable possibility of a different verdict without it.

State v. Solomon · filed 2025-06-18Rule 404(b)

Even if we presume, without deciding, that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s commission of the 2017 drive-by shooting, we are convinced that any such error was harmless. The State’s other evidence in this case—discussed in detail above—was overwhelming despite its circumstantial nature, and defendant cannot demonstrate a reasonable possibility that he would have been acquitted absent the admission of the State’s 404(b) evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not prejudicially err in admitting evidence of the 2017 shooting.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a sufficiently similar and recent prior act to show a common plan, subject to Rule 403’s balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice.

State v. Wilson · filed 2025-07-02Rule 404(b); Rule 403

Here, Ms. Campbell’s testimony tended to show a common plan or scheme to sexually abuse children of similar age and circumstance. ... Finally, the abuse of the children occurred within a two-year time span, rendering the acts sufficiently temporally proximate as required by Rule 404(b). ... Neither did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to exclude the evidence concerning Defendant’s sexual abuse of his granddaughter under Rule 403.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act when substantial evidence supports a finding that the defendant committed it and the evidence is relevant beyond showing propensity.

State v. Goodson · filed 2025-08-06Rule 404(b)

Because Hawkins’ testimony, Officer Hoyle’s testimony, and the 911 audio recordings adequately supported the conclusion that defendant hit Hawkins’ vehicle and threatened him in April 2022, the trial court did not err, much less plainly err, in concluding sufficient evidence tended to show defendant had committed the prior acts.

Rule 404(b) does not permit an unrelated prior-offense notation on a fingerprint card to prove the charged offenses; admitting the notation was not plain error without a probable impact on the verdict.

State v. Clifford · filed 2025-10-15Rule 404(b)

However, the challenged language (“FAIL REGISTER SEX OFFENDER”) was indeed unrelated to the charges and did not serve to prove any of the purposes listed under 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior acts when it is relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime.

State v. Jacome · filed 2025-11-05Rule 404(b)

Therefore, based on a de novo review of the record and evidence, we hold there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of law that the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior acts to show identity, motive, or plan when the acts meet its similarity and temporal proximity requirements.

State v. Thorpe · filed 2026-06-17Rule 404(b)

As the evidence shows identity, motive, and plan, and the requirements of similarity and temporal proximity are met, the trial court did not err when it admitted the Rule 404(b) evidence.

Rule 411 allows evidence of insurance status for purposes other than proving negligent or wrongful conduct; its listed permissible purposes are examples, not an exhaustive list.

Johnson v. Skinner · filed 1990-06-19Rule 411

Rule 411 enumerates several examples for which evidence of insurance is admissible, but it does not by its terms limit admissibility to those examples alone.

Rule 411 permits evidence of liability insurance to show a witness’s bias when the witness’s relationship with the insurer bears on credibility.

Carrier v. Starnes · filed 1995-11-07Rule 411

We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of liability insurance for the limited purpose of demonstrating bias.

Rule 411 prohibits evidence of a defendant's liability insurance coverage even when evidence of the plaintiff's workers' compensation recovery is admitted.

Anderson v. Hollifield · filed 1996-08-06Rule 411

Plaintiff's argument would in effect require us to amend G.S. 97-10.2(e) and G.S. 8C-1, Rule 411 to strike down the prohibition against the admission of liability insurance evidence in this context. We decline and accordingly conclude that the trial court properly granted defendant's motion in limine prohibiting the introduction of evidence of defendant's liability insurance coverage.

Rule 403 permits a court to exclude evidence that an expert witness and defendant share a malpractice insurer when the witness’s status as a policyholder has too little probative value to outweigh the risk of prejudice.

Warren v. Jackson · filed 1997-01-07Rule 403

Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting Jackson’s motion in limine thereby suppressing evidence that Jackson and two of his expert witnesses shared a common malpractice carrier, Medical Mutual.

Rule 411 excludes liability insurance evidence offered to prove wrongful conduct; an incidental reference to insurance does not necessarily require a mistrial.

Medlin v. Fyco, Inc. · filed 2000-08-15Rule 411

G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 411 provides that evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue of whether he acted wrongfully. ... In the present case, Mr. Strand’s mention of Kimley-Horn’s connection with defendant’s insurer conveyed, at most, a suggestion that coverage existed; it was not direct evidence of an independent fact that defendant was insured against liability for defects in plaintiffs’ house. ... We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for mistrial.

Rule 411 permits evidence concerning liability insurance when it serves a collateral purpose rather than proving negligent or wrongful conduct.

Williams v. McCoy · filed 2001-07-17Rule 411

It is clear to this Court that Rule 411 did not bar plaintiff’s explanation as to why she hired an attorney, in light of the circumstances presented by the instant case. ... Plaintiff’s explanation as to defense counsel’s subsequent question did not bear directly on defendant’s liability or wrongful conduct, but, as a collateral issue, simply explained the somewhat confusing answer solicited by the defense. We therefore find that plaintiff’s examination should not have been excluded per Rule 411.

Rule 411 generally bars evidence of liability insurance when offered to prove that a person acted negligently or wrongfully.

Garrett v. Smith · filed 2004-04-20Rule 411

Rule 411 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides, with certain exceptions, “[e]vidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue [of] whether [s]he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 411 (2003). ... As such, evidence that defendant’s insurance company had agreed to settle any claim for property damage arising out of this accident was inadmissible in the subsequent action for personal injury damages as proof that defendant was liable for the accident.

Rule 411 permits liability insurance evidence offered to prove agency only if it is relevant under Rule 401.

Williams v. Bell · filed 2005-01-04Rule 411

While Rule 411 does not prohibit the admission of evidence of liability insurance to establish agency, the evidence must still meet the relevancy requirements of Rule 401 to be admissible.

Rule 408 excludes compromise offers and acceptances offered to prove liability or invalidity of a claim, but permits evidence of a concluded settlement agreement.

Carter v. Foster · filed 1991-06-04Rule 408

While evidence of either an offer or acceptance of consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a disputed claim is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim, N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 408 (1988), “evidence of a contract of compromise between the parties to a suit, whether or not performed, is admissible.” ... Applying these principles, the trial court could properly consider the parties’ Settlement Agreement and its negotiated provision for payment of attorney’s fees in deciding plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Rule 408 generally bars evidence of settlements, and claimed prejudice did not justify admitting the settlement agreement here.

Ryals v. Hall-Lane Moving & Storage Co. · filed 1996-04-02Rule 408

Accordingly, we find unavailing the argument of Williams and Mahoney that they were unduly prejudiced by the trial court’s refusal to suspend the normal rule prohibiting evidence of settlements, N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 408 (1992), and to allow evidence of plaintiff’s settlement with Jensen and Hall-Lane to come before the jury.

Rule 408 permits evidence from compromise negotiations when it is offered to show an improper purpose rather than to prove the validity or amount of a claim.

Renner v. Hawk · filed 1997-03-04Rule 408

Clearly, defendant offered the evidence to show not that plaintiff’s claim lacked validity, but that it was brought for an improper purpose.

Rule 408 permits statements from compromise negotiations when offered for a purpose other than proving a claim, and Rule 801(d) permits a party’s agent’s statement about a matter within the scope of the agency.

Wilson Realty & Construction, Inc. v. Asheboro-Randolph Board of Realtors, Inc. · filed 1999-08-03Rules 408 and 801(d)

This Rule, however, does not prohibit the presentation of evidence of statements made in compromise negotiations, if offered for some other purpose. ... Under Rule 801(d), a statement made by an agent of a party relating an out-of-court statement made by that party is admissible against that party if the statement concerns a matter within the scope of the agency and was made during the existence of the agency relationship.

Rule 408 permits settlement evidence offered to show constructive possession rather than liability for the settled claim.

State v. Hughes · filed 2014-08-05Rule 408

The evidence was thus admissible and its admission does not violate Rule 408.

Rule 408 permits evidence of compromise negotiations when offered to prove the existence or breach of an agreement rather than the validity of an underlying claim.

Gao v. Sinova Specialties, Inc. · filed 2018-05-29Rule 408

Enschedé’s Affidavit was not offered to prove the validity or invalidity of any of the claims in this action; rather, it was offered to prove that the parties entered into the MOU and that Defendants breached the terms thereof by failing to negotiate in good faith. Therefore, Rule 408 does not bar admission of Enschedé’s Affidavit.

Rule 408 bars consideration of compromise negotiations when deciding an equitable distribution claim.

Eason v. Taylor · filed 2016-01-19Rule 408

Even if defendant made a generous offer, plaintiff was not obligated to accept it, nor would their negotiations, if they had occurred, been a proper matter for the trial court to consider.

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence preserve the privilege against disclosure of confidential marital communications.

State v. Holmes · filed 1992-01-31Rule 601

While our cases and statutes have not been models of clarity, collectively they stand for the proposition that a confidential communication between husband and wife is privileged and that this privilege, even in criminal cases, survives both the North Carolina Rules of Evidence and the amendments to N.C.G.S. § 8-57.

Rule 406 treats a person’s practice of always carrying money as a habit.

State v. Palmer · filed 1993-07-02Rule 406

We believe the custom of always having money on her person constituted a habit.

Rule 406 permits proof of habit through specific instances of conduct if the trial court finds the evidence reliable and probative.

Crawford v. Fayez · filed 1993-10-19Rule 406

From our review of the foregoing authorities, we are persuaded that Rule 406 permits proof of habit by evidence of specific instances of conduct. Before evidence of specific instances of conduct may be admitted to prove habit, however, the trial court must make certain inquiries to determine the reliability and probative value of the proffered evidence.

Rule 406 allows evidence of habitual conduct to show that a person knowingly took the same risk on a particular occasion when its relevance is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Anderson v. Austin · filed 1994-06-07

We agree with defendants’ theory of admissibility and conclude that the evidence of habit was relevant to defendants’ claim of willful or wanton conduct on the part of plaintiff, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the relevance of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 406 permits testimony about an analyst’s routine procedures to prove that a particular breathalyzer test followed those procedures.

State v. Tappe · filed 2000-07-18Rule 406

Potts’ testimony provided competent evidence under G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 406, that the breathalyzer test administered to defendant “was in conformity with the habit or routine practice,” id., of Potts and other chemical analysts administering Breathalyzer 900 tests.

Rule 406 allows a trial court to exclude two incidents occurring two years apart as insufficient to establish a habit.

State v. Chavis · filed 2000-12-29Rule 406

The trial court denied admissibility of this evidence because it believed the “two incidents” occurring “two years apart” were not sufficient to constitute a habit within the meaning of Rule 406. We cannot hold this constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Rule 406 requires conduct to be regular and systematic before it qualifies as habit evidence; visiting a store two or three times each month does not qualify.

State v. Fair · filed 2001-10-05Rule 406

Evidence of habit is relevant to prove that “the conduct of the person ... on a particular occasion was in conformity” therewith. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 406 (1999). ... Occasional visits to a store do not rise to the level of regular and systematic conduct. ... The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in determining that the challenged testimony did not constitute relevant evidence of habit.

Rule 406 permits habit evidence but does not create an exception to the hearsay rule.

State v. Lester · filed 2025-07-16Rule 406

Rule 406 does not provide an exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay.

Rule 406 permits evidence of a person’s habit to show conduct on a particular occasion, subject to the trial court’s assessment of the evidence’s reliability and probative value.

Long v. Harris · filed 2000-04-18Rule 406

The court therefore did not abuse its discretion by excluding Gary’s testimony on this issue, see Crawford, 112 N.C. App. at 335, 435 S.E.2d at 550, and plaintiffs’ first assignment of error fails.

Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice of a readily verifiable fact only when the source’s accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned; an unsourced newspaper report of sunset and moon phase does not qualify.

State v. Canady · filed 1993-07-06Rule 201(b)

To warrant judicial notice under the second part of this test, the source from which the data is drawn must be “a document of such indisputable accuracy as [would] justify] judicial reliance.” ... The Fayetteville Observer is not such a document.

Rule 201(g)’s instruction about judicially noticed facts does not apply when a court takes notice of federal law.

State v. Bacon · filed 1994-07-29Rule 201(g)

The State contends, and we agree, that the United States Code sections are not adjudicative facts. ... As the commentary to Rule 201 notes, the rule “deals only with judicial notice of ‘adjudicative’ facts.” In the present case, the trial court properly took notice of and instructed upon federal law.

Rule 201(d) requires a court to take judicial notice when a party requests it and supplies the necessary information.

Vandervoort v. McKenzie · filed 1994-12-06Rule 201(d)

Rule 201(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides that “[a] court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.” G.S. 8C-1, Rule 201(d). Here, the trial court stated that it did not know the distance between the two cities. Appellant’s counsel offered to supply the trial court with a map at the lunch break, but the trial court declined to wait. Although the better practice would have been for the trial court to provide appellant’s attorney with time to retain a map, we hold on this record that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to take judicial notice of the distance between Marion and Mebane.

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice at any stage of facts readily and accurately determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Addison v. Moss · filed 1996-06-04Rule 201

Initially, we note a court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not and at any stage of the proceeding, of facts capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (1992). ... We therefore take judicial notice that the bundles were subject to the property of inertia when they fell from the back of Tyson’s truck..

Rule 201(b) permits a trial court to take judicial notice of a fact that is generally known within its territorial jurisdiction and not subject to reasonable dispute.

In Re Spivey · filed 1997-02-10Rule 201(b)

Rule 201(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides that a trial court may take judicial notice of a fact if it is not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201(b) (1992). No fact is more generally known than that a white man who calls a black man a “nigger” within his hearing will hurt and anger the black man and often provoke him to confront the white man and retaliate. The trial court was free to judicially note this fact.

Rule 201 permits judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only when it is not subject to reasonable dispute.

Hinkle v. Hartsell · filed 1998-12-29Rule 201(b)

Similarly, in the case sub judice, the prevalence of crime in and about the premises of the Country Manor Inn, and how this crime affects the safety of its residents, is no doubt a matter of debate within the community. ... Therefore, we find that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by judicially noticing this fact sua sponte, and the case must be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of its own records in an interrelated proceeding involving the same parties.

Sugg v. Field · filed 2000-07-18Rule 201

It is well established that a court of this State may take judicial notice of its own records in an interrelated proceeding involving the same parties.

Rule 201 governs judicial notice of adjudicative facts; legal conclusions are not proper subjects for judicial notice.

Glenn-Robinson v. Acker · filed 2000-12-05Rule 201

Judicial notice of adjudicative facts is governed by N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (1999). ... Rather, “facts” two through four are best characterized as legal conclusions, which are not a proper subject for judicial notice.

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice on its own of generally known facts or facts readily verifiable from reliable sources, and a party must timely request an opportunity to be heard.

Smith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2000-12-29Rule 201(b), (c), (e)

Based on N.C.R. Evid. 201(b) and (c), Judge Griffin, on his own accord, properly took judicial notice of (1) the number of highly skilled plaintiffs' attorneys engaged in the trial of medical negligence actions in our state as that information is generally known within the jurisdiction of the trial courts of this state, and (2) the number of times the Gary Law Firm participated in litigation in North Carolina by relying on information supplied by the North Carolina State Bar Association as that information is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to timely request an opportunity to be heard as per Rule 201(e).

Rule 201(e) entitles a party who makes a timely request to be heard about the propriety and tenor of judicial notice.

Mason v. Town of Fletcher · filed 2002-04-02Rule 201(e)

“In a trial court, a party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(e) (1999). Plaintiffs made no such request before the trial court, nor do they argue on appeal that the trial court could not properly take notice of its own records. ... We conclude that the trial court could properly take judicial notice of Case Number 97 CVS 586, and thus there was competent evidence before the trial court in the instant case to support its finding that the Howard Gap Road right-of-way was 39.37 feet wide.

Rule 201 does not permit judicial notice of an agency’s legal conclusions.

Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper · filed 2002-09-17Rule 201

As noted above, legal conclusions are legislative facts, and as such, are not properly subject to judicial notice under Rule 201.

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of an earlier order's findings, conclusions, and decrees in the same case.

Leder v. Leder · filed 2004-09-21Rule 201

In the instant case, the trial court had before it the 25 April 2002 order compelling discovery and could take judicial notice of the order's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decrees.

Rule 201 makes judicial notice discretionary unless a party requests it and supplies the court with the necessary information.

Jones v. Ratley · filed 2005-01-18Rule 201(c)-(d)

Rule 201 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence clearly states that judicial notice is discretionary: "A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not." G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201(c) (2003) (emphasis added). Judicial notice is mandatory only where "requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information." G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201(d). Here, defendant does not argue that he requested the court take judicial notice or that he supplied the court with the necessary information. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to take judicial notice.

Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice of prior disposition orders in the same case despite their lower evidentiary standard, but the court must independently decide whether to terminate parental rights.

In the Matter of JB · filed 2005-08-02Rule 201(b)

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(b) (2003) provides that "[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is ... capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." ... However, respondent cites no authority for the contention that "judicial notice is inappropriate where the other orders have a lower evidentiary standard[,]" ... Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that the trial court failed to conduct the independent determination required at a termination hearing when prior disposition orders have been entered in the matter. ... Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err by admitting the prior disposition orders, and, accordingly, we overrule this argument.

Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice of prior orders in the same proceeding even when those orders were entered under a lower standard of proof.

In re J.B. · filed 2005-08-02Rule 201(b)

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(b) (2003) provides that "[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." ... Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err by admitting the prior disposition orders, and, accordingly, we overrule this argument.

Rule 201(b) did not permit the court to take judicial notice of the Secretary of State certificate concerning FYE, Incorporated.

State v. Cave · filed 2005-11-15Rule 201(b)

Upon further consideration of that motion, we hold that the motion was improvidently granted as we deem the taking of judicial notice of this fact to be improper under Rule 201(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Rule 201(c) allows a court to take judicial notice on its own motion; express notice to the parties beforehand is not required.

In Re DSA · filed 2007-02-20Rule 201(c)

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201 states that a court may take judicial notice on its own motion. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(c) (2005). Further, while it is the better practice to give express notice to the parties of the intention to take judicial notice of matters contained in the juvenile's file, it is not required.

Rule 201(f) permits a court to take judicial notice at any stage of a proceeding, including on appeal.

State v. Jordan · filed 2007-11-06Rule 201(f)

As our Supreme Court did in Garrison, we take judicial notice that in Chowan County on 12 December 2003, the sun set at 4:52 p.m., and the end of civil twilight occurred at 5:21 p.m. See the schedule for “Sunrise and Sunset” computed by the Nautical Almanac Office, United States Naval Observatory. See also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(f) (providing that a court may take judicial notice at any stage of a proceeding).

Rule 201 limits judicial notice to adjudicative facts relevant to the claims in the case.

State v. Baskin · filed 2008-05-06Rule 201(a)

The scope of Rule 201 is expressly limited to adjudicative facts. ... It is not proper to place irrelevant facts before a jury, by judicial notice or otherwise.

Rule 201(d) requires a court to take judicial notice when a party requests it and supplies the necessary information.

State v. Tyson · filed 2008-04-01Rule 201(d)

Defendant asks that we take judicial notice of this arrest warrant, and we grant Defendant’s request. ... N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(d) (2007) (“A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.”).

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice at any stage of a proceeding, whether requested or not.

Goldston v. State · filed 2009-09-15Rule 201(c), (f)

Under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(f) (2007), judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceedings. Section (c) allows a court to take judicial notice whether requested or not. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201(c). To the extent these materials submitted to the trial court contain adjudicated facts and refer to statutes, we have considered these materials in our review.

Rule 201 permits the court to take judicial notice on its own motion of facts outside the record on appeal.

Southeastern Jurisdictional Administrative Council, Inc. v. Emerson · filed 2009-10-09Rule 201

In order to give full consideration to "the nature and character of the community" at issue here, Armstrong v. Ledges Homeowners Ass'n, 360 N.C. 547, 548, 633 S.E.2d 78, 81 (2006), we elect, ex mero motu, to take judicial notice of certain facts pertaining to the Assembly that do not appear in the record on appeal.

Rule 201 permits an appellate court to decline judicial notice of agency guidelines that the parties did not present or discuss in their briefs.

State v. Vogt · filed 2009-11-03Rule 201(c) and (f)

Although we do not dispute the Court's authority to judicially notice the interim guidelines, State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 289 N.C. 286, 288, 221 S.E.2d 322, 323 (1976), we are not persuaded that we should exercise our discretion to do so given that the parties did not bring these guidelines to our attention or discuss them in their briefs. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 201(c) and (f).

Rule 201 does not permit judicial notice of disputed facts merely because the judge heard testimony about them in another proceeding.

Hensey v. Hennessy · filed 2009-11-17Rule 201

Plaintiff does not contend that the facts as alleged regarding defendant’s acts of domestic violence were “not subject to reasonable dispute[,]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201, but relies only upon the fact that the trial judge had already heard these same facts being disputed, apparently quite vigorously, in criminal court. Judicial notice is entirely inappropriate for factual issues such as those presented by this case.