N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of reliable sunset and twilight times after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard and, in a criminal case, telling the jury it need not accept the noticed facts.

State v. McCormick · filed 2010-05-18Rule 201

The application of this rule of evidence in the present case is a routine application of this evidentiary principle, thus we hold that judicial notice was procedurally taken. The court committed no error in admitting the celestial timetable.

Rule 201(b) permits a court to take judicial notice of Charlotte’s location within Mecklenburg County.

ITS Leasing, Inc. v. Ram Dog Enterprises, LLC · filed 2010-08-17Rule 201(b)

We take judicial notice pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(b) (2007) that all of the city of Charlotte, North Carolina is in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; the geographical basis for jurisdiction of the trial court is the county, not the city.

Section 8C-1, Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice of a recorded trustee's deed to establish that a foreclosure sale occurred and the property was conveyed.

In Re Hackley · filed 2011-06-21Rule 201(b)

Here, the fact that the foreclosure sale did occur and the property was conveyed by the trustee is "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned," see N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(b), specifically the Trustee's Deed.

Rule 201(d) does not require judicial notice when a party supplies alleged merger documents only as an appendix to its appellate brief.

TD Bank, N.A. v. Mirabella · filed 2012-03-20(d)

We do not consider plaintiff’s provision of the alleged merger documents as an appendix to its brief as supplying the necessary information under Rule 201.

Rule 201(b)(2) permits judicial notice of a clerk-certified court record showing payment of fines and costs.

State v. King · filed 2012-02-07Rule 201(b)(2)

Here, the' copy of the defendant’s payment of the $1,758.50 is marked “True Copy” and signed by an assistant clerk. Therefore, the document is a public record and we may take judicial notice of the fact that defendant paid $1,758.50 to Haywood County for the monetary obligations of the original judgment.

Rule 201 does not allow judicial notice of the existence of a tribal-state child welfare agreement as an adjudicative fact.

In re E.G.M. · filed 2013-11-05Rule 201(b)

Nor are we persuaded that an MOA executed under 25 U.S.C. § 1919(a) falls within the ambit of “adjudicative facts” as contemplated by N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (2011).

Rule 201(e) gives a party an opportunity to be heard about judicial notice; a party who receives no advance notice must request a post-decision hearing to preserve an objection.

In re A.L.P. · filed 2015-06-16Rule 201(e)

A party is entitled "to an opportunity 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) (2013). ... Here, respondent did not receive any notice that Judge Penry was going to take judicial notice of the case file, and thus was required to request a post-decision hearing thereon. However, respondent did not request a post-decision hearing and she has thus waived this claim.

Rule 201 permits an appellate court to take judicial notice of official Department of Public Safety records that were not before the trial court.

In re: S.D. · filed 2015-09-01Rule 201

We realize that hindsight is 20/20, and this information was not before the trial court, but we can take judicial notice of the fact that the official records of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Division of Adult Correction show that Carl Smith is currently serving active time in prison for the crimes for which he was charged at the inception of this WCHS proceeding, committed on the same date that WCHS received an investigative assessment regarding Mr. Smith’s arrest.

Rule 201 permits the court to take judicial notice of a defendant’s release date from Department of Public Safety offender search results.

State v. Harwood · filed 2015-10-06Rule 201

Under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 201, we take judicial notice of this fact from the Department of Public Safety website’s offender search results.

Rule 201(b) does not permit judicial notice of a person’s disputed earning capacity based on average salary statistics.

Khaja v. Husna · filed 2015-10-06Rule 201(b)

Either way, her earning capacity is not the type of undisputed fact of which the trial court could take judicial notice under Rule 201.

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice on its own of facts that are generally known locally or readily verified from reliable sources.

Terry v. Cheesecake Factory Rests., Inc. · filed 2017-04-18Rule 201(b), (c)

In fact, we will take judicial notice that Crabtree Valley Mall is in Wake County and further that the Cheesecake Factory was operating in Crabtree Valley Mall as of the date of commencement of the action.

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of a newly filed lawsuit relevant to its appellate jurisdiction.

Parmley v. Barrow · filed 2017-06-06Rule 201

However, because Plaintiff’s estate filed a new law suit after the trial court entered its order granting summary judgment, and because the existence of this new action is a determinative fact in our analysis as to whether this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s appeal, we take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s current suit in Durham County pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (2016).

Rule 201(f) permits judicial notice at any stage, including on appeal when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence.

State v. Cannon · filed 2017-08-01Rule 201(f)

While not explicitly requested to do so by the State, we take judicial notice of the geographic distance and commercial nature of the routes between Gastonia and Denver in considering the circumstances present in this case. “Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201(f) (2015).

Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice of facts generally known within the trial court’s jurisdiction or readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Zloop, Inc. v. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP · filed 2018-02-16Rule 201(b)

A judicially noticeable fact is one that is “(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”

Rule 201 requires judicial notice when a party requests it and supplies the necessary information; otherwise, judicial notice is discretionary.

In Re Estate of Sharpe · filed 2018-04-03Rule 201(c), (d)

The trial court is required to take judicial notice of certain facts only when a party requests it and supplies the necessary information pursuant to Rule 201(d). Otherwise, taking judicial notice rests within the discretion of the trial court pursuant to Rule 201(c).

Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice that reports were available on a website, but not of disputed facts within those reports.

Herrera v. Charlotte School of Law, LLC · filed 2018-04-20Rule 201(b)

The Court concludes that it may take judicial notice of the fact that these documents were available on CSL’s website, but not the disputed facts contained in those reports.

Rule 201(c) permits a court to take judicial notice without a request from either party.

State v. Teague · filed 2018-06-05Rule 201(c)

For purposes of addressing Defendant’s argument that Detective Braswell’s refuse search was potentially stale, we take judicial notice of the records of the United States Naval Observatory. See State v. Garrison, 294 N.C. 270, 280, 240 S.E.2d 377, 383 (1978) (taking judicial notice of U.S. Naval Observatory report to affirm nighttime element in burglary conviction). “A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(c) (2017).

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of an undisputed adjudicative fact shown in its own file.

State v. Isaacs · filed 2018-10-02Rule 201(c)

“A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(c) (2017). Rule 201 only applies to “adjudicative facts.” Id. ... Here, the trial court took judicial notice of a fact “beyond reasonable controversy.” It is undisputed that Defendant was served with an order of arrest on 2 May 2017, prior to the 150-day statutory deadline.

Rule 201 permits judicial notice of adjudicative facts only when they are not subject to reasonable dispute.

Crews v. Paysour · filed 2018-10-02

Evidence is always required to support findings of fact, unless the parties have stipulated to the fact or the finding is subject to judicial notice, neither of which is present here.

Rule 201(c) permits an appellate court to consider a public document that was not before the trial court when assessing subject matter jurisdiction.

Chavez v. Carmichael · filed 2018-11-06Rule 201(c)

An appellate court may also consider materials that were not before the lower tribunal to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Rule 201(b) does not permit judicial notice of disputed studies and statistics about sex offender recidivism.

State v. Anthony · filed 2019-08-20Rule 201(b)

Despite the State’s attempt to distinguish this case from others where this Court has overturned SBM orders, we conclude that the statistics and studies mentioned by the State in its argument were not subject to judicial notice under Rule 201.

Rule 201(e) provides an opportunity to request a hearing about judicially noticed material; a party has no occasion to request one when the court gives no indication that it will take judicial notice.

In re: J.C.M.J.C., J.J.C.C. · filed 2019-10-15Rule 201(e)

Because the trial court never indicated its intention to take judicial notice of any material, Respondents had no occasion to request an opportunity to be heard on the matter as provided by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(e). We find CCDHS’s assertion to the contrary unpersuasive.

Rule 201(b) allows judicial notice only of facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute; hypothetical stock market returns do not qualify.

Myers v. Myers · filed 2020-01-07Rule 201(b)

Husband even asked the trial court to take judicial notice of her potential returns from investing in stock market, which the trial court very appropriately declined to do.17 ... Rule 201 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides that “[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(b).

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute.

In re: R.P. & X.P. · filed 2021-03-16Rule 201

We take judicial notice that Judge Pool resigned from the bench and left the orders unsigned. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (2019) (court may take judicial notice of fact not subject to reasonable dispute).

Rule 201 permits judicial notice of the existence and language of important public contracts when their existence is not reasonably disputed.

PF Dev. Grp. · filed 2020-12-31Rule 201(b)

The trial court took judicial notice of the existence of the agreements and of the language therein, then interpreted that language as a matter of law. It was, therefore, not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to take judicial notice of the 1984 Buies Creek Agreement and the 1998 Agreement and to consider the documents in its review of the parties’ pleadings.

Rule 201 permits judicial notice of facts that are not reasonably disputable, including the existence of public agreements whose accuracy can readily be checked.

Anderson Creek Partners · filed 2020-12-31Rule 201

Judicial notice is appropriate where a fact is “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (2017). ... It was, therefore, not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to take judicial notice of the 1984 Buies Creek Agreement and the 1998 Agreement and to consider the documents in its review of the parties’ pleadings.

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice that DSS assessment policies and protocols appear in North Carolina’s Child Welfare Manual.

In re: J.M. & N.M. · filed 2021-04-06Rule 201

This Court in its discretion takes judicial notice that the policies and protocols that guide and govern family assessments and investigative assessments, “CPS Family and Investigative Assessments, Policy, Protocol, and Guidance,” (“DSS’s Assessment Manual”), are found in North Carolina’s Child Welfare Manual published by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (2019).

Rule 201 does not permit judicial notice of a program’s general benefits based on a judge’s personal knowledge when those benefits are open to reasonable dispute.

In re: L.G.A. · filed 2021-04-20Rule 201(b)

Although the trial court no doubt had personal knowledge of the IMPACT program in general and had apparently seen good results from the program, the benefits of the IMPACT program are not “well established” or “authoritatively settled” in the manner appropriate for judicial notice under Rule 201.

Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice of a recorded condominium declaration, including a portion omitted from the appellate record.

Alexander v. Becker · filed 2021-11-02Rule 201(b)

We, therefore, take judicial under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201(b) (2020) of the Declaration, including Article X, as recorded.

Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice of a fact only when it is not reasonably disputed; a weather report lacking data for the relevant time does not establish the rainfall at that time.

State v. Bucklew · filed 2021-12-07Rule 201(b)

Because the proffered weather report did not contain the necessary data showing the level of rain at the time of the collision, the Weather Report fails under the second prong of Rule 201(b).

Rule 201 governs judicial notice of adjudicative facts; filings already in the same case’s record are not adjudicative facts for that purpose.

Slattery v. Appycity, LLC · filed 2022-02-16Rule 201

Judicial notice is properly taken by the Court of “adjudicative facts.” The filings of record in this very action are not “adjudicative facts” of which the Court would properly take judicial notice.

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

Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v. Nucor Corp. · filed 2022-11-08Rule 201(d)

The Court takes judicial notice of Nucor’s complaint ... See also N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201(d).

Rule 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of a business’s general size based on uncontested website information, even when the court cannot verify the exact figures.

McGriff Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Hudson · filed 2023-01-17Rule 201(b), (d)

In this case, however, the Court is not able to accurately determine that McGriff has 3500 employees at over 120 offices by resort to anything other than McGriff’s own website. However, absent objection from McGriff, the Court, in its discretion, takes judicial notice of the fact that McGriff’s insurance business is sizeable and requires it to employ many more individuals than those with whom Hudson could have become personally acquainted in offices that span across a large territory.

Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice of adjudicative facts only when they are not subject to reasonable dispute.

Sternola v. Aljian · filed 2024-03-19Rule 201(b)

In the absence of substantial competent evidence, the trial court erred in finding by purportedly “judicially noticing” there were “substantial employment opportunities in banking and finance.”

Rule 201 permits judicial notice of prior appellate filings in the same case.

State v. Walker · filed 2024-03-22Rule 201

In advancing this argument, defendant filed a Motion to Take Judicial Notice, requesting this Court take judicial notice of the prior appellate filings in his case. Judicial notice of the appellate filings is proper, and therefore, defendant’s motion is allowed. See In re McLean Trucking Co., 285 N.C. 552, 557 (1974); N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (2023).

Section 8C-1, Rule 201 permits judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known in the trial court’s jurisdiction or can be accurately determined from reliable sources.

State v. Fearns · filed 2025-03-05Rule 201(b)

While Judge Fox’s exact date of retirement is not in our record, we take judicial notice of this fact as it is “not subject to reasonable dispute” and is both “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court” and “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (2023).

Rule 201(b)(2) permits judicial notice of weather and river-crest facts established by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Devonwood-Loch Lomond Lake Ass'n · filed 2024-10-01Rule 201(b)(2)

Though Plaintiffs do not specify the exact date of the overtopping in their complaint, we take judicial notice of the fact that Hurricane Matthew affected the Caribbean and southeastern United States between 28 September 2016 and 9 October 2016, with the latest recorded cresting of the Cape Fear River occurring 17 October 2016. National Weather Service, Hurricane Matthew in the Carolinas: October 8, 2016 (Aug. 21, 2024, 12:08 PM), https://www.weather.gov/ilm/Matthew; see also N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201(b)(2) (2023) (“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.”); State v. Bucklew, 280 N.C. App. 494, 505 (2021) (“[W]eather reports from the National Weather Service are a result of data gathered by the National Weather Service and thus typically are documents of indisputable accuracy.”).

Rule 201(b) permits judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it can be readily determined from reliable sources.

In re: G.Y., C.Y., S.Y. · filed 2025-11-19Rule 201(b)

Judicial notice may be taken when the fact is “one not subject to reasonable dispute” because it can be readily determined by reliable sources. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201(b). ... However, because the findings of facts within the obstruction order are not supported by clear, cogent, or convincing evidence at the adjudication hearing, Finding of Fact No. 17 cannot support an adjudication of neglect.

A custody court may consider a prior judicial determination of parental unfitness reached with due process and by a preponderance of the evidence.

Davis v. McMillian · filed 2002-08-06Rule 201(b)

Since under Speagle, a trial court must consider testimonial evidence which only meets the test of relevancy, then most assuredly, an actual court determination based on a preponderance of the evidence from a prior proceeding must be considered.

Rule 706(b) authorizes reasonable compensation for court-appointed experts, and a fee cap in a referee’s consent order does not limit the trial court’s authority to award it.

Sharp v. Sharp · filed 1994-10-18Rule 706(b)

Defendant has failed to cite, and we find no legal authority for the proposition that a consent order entered by a referee deprives the trial court of its authority to award reasonable compensation to an expert witness appointed by consent of the parties.

Rule 706(a) allows a trial court to appoint an expert to provide an independent opinion on a business’s value.

Offerman v. Offerman · filed 2000-04-04Rule 706(a)

We note that in valuation cases the trial court has the authority to enlist the aid of a court-appointed expert in order to receive an independent opinion as to the valuation of a business. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 706(a) (1999); Poore, 75 N.C. App. at 422, 331 S.E.2d at 272.

Rule 706(b) allows reasonable compensation for a court-appointed expert’s court-ordered work, but does not cover attorneys’ fees or expenses incurred outside that work.

Point Intrepid, LLC v. Farley · filed 2011-08-16Rule 706(b)

When an expert is appointed for court-ordered work, reasonable compensation is limited to reimbursement for performance of that work only. ... We believe these additional fees are not “reasonable compensation” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 706. ... First, Johnson cannot recover attorneys’ fees because Rule 706 does not explicitly mention attorneys’ fees as a recoverable expense.

Rule 706(b) permits compensation for a court-appointed expert beyond time spent testifying; a prior appointment order is needed to treat a party’s expert as court-appointed.

Slaughter v. Slaughter · filed 2017-07-18Rule 706(b)

Thus, while ordinarily the costs of an expert may only be awarded for testimony given, the costs of a court-appointed expert are not subject to such limitation. ... In those cases, there was some form of prior court order appointing an expert, thus placing the parties on notice that the expert might be considered court-appointed pursuant to Rule 706. In the instant case, however, no such prior order exists with respect to Dupuis.

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the Rules of Evidence inapplicable in sentencing proceedings.

State v. Williams · filed 1996-06-13Rule 1101(b)(3)

Because the report was used in the penalty phase, the Rules of Evidence do not apply, and the State was properly allowed to argue reasonable inferences drawn from the testimony concerning the report.

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the North Carolina Rules of Evidence inapplicable to sentencing proceedings, so Rule 403 balancing is unnecessary.

State v. Cummings · filed 1997-07-24Rule 1101(b)(3)

However, the North Carolina Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings.

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the Rules of Evidence inapplicable to sentencing proceedings.

State v. Holden · filed 1997-07-24Rule 1101(b)(3)

The Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (1992).

The Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings.

State v. Adams · filed 1997-09-05Rule 1101(b)(3)

The Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (1992).

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the Rules of Evidence inapplicable at sentencing hearings, though they may guide decisions about reliability and relevance.

State v. Bond · filed 1996-12-06Rule 1101(b)(3)

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (1992). ... Although the Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings, they may be helpful as a guide to reliability and relevance.

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the Rules of Evidence inapplicable during sentencing proceedings, so trial courts need not perform Rule 403 balancing.

State v. Flippen · filed 1998-11-06Rule 1101(b)(3)

The Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (1992). ... Thus, trial courts are not required to perform the Rule 403 balancing test during a sentencing proceeding.

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the Rules of Evidence inapplicable in sentencing proceedings, leaving the trial court broad discretion over cross-examination.

State v. Warren · filed 1997-11-07Rule 1101(b)(3)

In a sentencing proceeding, the Rules of Evidence do not limit this discretion because they do not apply.

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the Rules of Evidence formally inapplicable at sentencing, but hearsay must be relevant to a sentencing issue and bear indicia of reliability.

State v. Stephens · filed 1997-12-05Rule 1101(b)(3)

Although the North Carolina Rules of Evidence do not apply formally to sentencing hearings, N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (1992), for a hearsay statement to be permitted in a sentencing proceeding, it must be relevant to a sentencing issue and bear indicia of reliability.

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the Rules of Evidence inapplicable in capital sentencing proceedings.

State v. Williams · filed 1999-02-05Rule 1101(b)(3)

The Rules of Evidence do not apply in capital sentencing proceedings. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (1992).

The Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings.

State v. Fleming · filed 1999-04-09Rule 1101(b)(3)

The Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (1997).

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence do not apply in capital sentencing proceedings.

State v. Blakeney · filed 2000-07-13Rule 1101(b)(3)

At the outset, we note the Rules of Evidence do not apply in capital sentencing proceedings.

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence do not apply to sentencing proceedings.

State v. Smith · filed 2000-08-25Rule 1101(b)(3)

We reiterate that the court has considerable leeway and discretion in governing the conduct of a sentencing proceeding, to which the North Carolina Rules of Evidence do not apply.

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the Rules of Evidence inapplicable to sentencing proceedings, though judges may exclude mitigating evidence that is repetitive, unreliable, or lacks an adequate foundation.

State v. Davis · filed 2000-12-21(b)(3)

The admissibility of mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase is not constrained by the rules of evidence. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3). However, the trial judge must determine the admissibility of such evidence subject to general rules excluding evidence that is repetitive or unreliable, or lacks an adequate foundation.

The Rules of Evidence do not apply to capital sentencing hearings, so the trial court need not conduct Rule 403 balancing.

State v. White · filed 2002-06-28Rule 1101(b)(3)

As noted earlier, the Rules of Evidence are not applicable to a capital sentencing proceeding; hence, the trial court was not required to engage in the Rule 403 balancing test.

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence do not apply to capital sentencing proceedings.

State v. Holmes · filed 2002-06-28

While the Rules of Evidence do not apply to a capital sentencing proceeding, State v. Daughtry, 340 N.C. 488, 517, 459 S.E.2d 747, 762 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1079, 133 L. Ed. 2d 739 (1996), the constitutional right to confront witnesses does apply, State v. McLaughlin, 341 N.C. 426, 458, 462 S.E.2d 1, 19 (1995) (holding that “[although the evidence at issue [at sentencing] was admissible as a matter of law under the statute, we must also address whether the admission of that [evidence] violated defendant’s confrontation rights under the federal and state constitutions”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1133, 133 L. Ed. 2d 879 (1996).

Rule 1101(b)(3) provides that the Rules of Evidence do not strictly govern capital sentencing proceedings.

State v. Carter · filed 2003-08-22Rule 1101(b)(3)

The admission of evidence during a capital sentencing proceeding, however, is not strictly governed by the Rules of Evidence. N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(a)(3) (2001); N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (2001).

Rule 1101(b)(3) provides that the rules of evidence do not apply in proceedings granting or revoking probation.

State v. Henderson · filed 2006-08-15Rule 1101(b)(3)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (2005) specifically states that the rules of evidence do not apply in proceedings granting or revoking probation.

The Rules of Evidence do not apply at sentencing hearings, so hearsay rules do not govern the admissibility of testimony there.

State v. Sings · filed 2007-03-06Rule 1101(b)(3)

Per statute, the Rules of Evidence do not apply at sentencing hearings.

Rule 803(6)'s business records requirements do not control in a capital penalty proceeding, but they can guide the court's assessment of reliability.

State v. Raines · filed 2007-12-07Rule 803(6)

It is not necessary that the detention center incident reports meet every requirement of an admissible business record under Rule of Evidence 803(6) because the Rules of Evidence are not controlling in a capital penalty proceeding.

Rule 1101 does not apply the Rules of Evidence to DMV license revocation hearings under § 20-16.2.

Johnson v. Robertson · filed 2013-05-21Rule 1101(a)

We hold the Rules of Evidence do not apply to DMV hearings held pursuant to § 20-16.2.

Rules 104(a) and 1101(b)(1) allow a judge to rely on relevant, reliable hearsay when making findings at a suppression hearing.

State v. Ingram · filed 2015-07-07Rules 104(a) and 1101(b)(1)

We note that Rules 104(a) and 1101(b)(1) of the North Carolina Evidence Code state explicitly the rules of evidence do not apply in suppression hearings. Therefore, the State's argument is without merit.

Rule 1101 makes the North Carolina Rules of Evidence applicable to minor guardianship hearings because neither Rule 1101(b) nor another statute exempts them.

In re: R.D.B. · filed 2020-12-01Rule 1101(a)-(b)

Accordingly, the Rules of Evidence apply to minor guardianship proceedings under section 35A-1223, and the trial court erred by concluding otherwise.

Rules 104(a) and 1101(b)(1) make the rules of evidence, except those concerning privileges, inapplicable to suppression hearings.

State v. Ezzell · filed 2021-05-04Rule 1101(b)(1)

The trial court did not err in concluding that the rules of evidence did not apply to the suppression hearing.

Rule 301 requires the party opposing a mandatory presumption to produce evidence rebutting it; otherwise, the finder of fact must accept the presumed fact.

Jacobsen v. McMillan · filed 1996-10-15Rule 301

Thus, when plaintiff proffers the evidence required by section 8-58.1, the finder-of-fact must find the total amount of the alleged medical charges is reasonable, unless defendant carries its burden of going forward by rebutting the presumed fact of reasonableness.

Rule 301 requires a jury instruction when a statutory or judicial presumption applies.

Griffis v. Lazarovich · filed 2003-12-02Rule 301

N.C.R. Evid. 301 states that the trial court must instruct the jury when a statutory or judicial presumption exists. ... Here, all parties stipulated to the amount of Griffis’s medical charges and to the reasonableness of the charges. Neither the amount nor reasonableness of Griffis’s medical expenses were “an issue.” ... Any instruction regarding the reasonableness of Griffis’s medical expenses would have been redundant and confusing to the jury.

Rule 301 requires a party opposing a civil presumption to produce evidence sufficient for reasonable minds to conclude that the presumed fact does not exist.

Dobson v. Harris · filed 2000-06-16Rule 301

Evidence offered to meet or rebut the presumption of good faith must be sufficient by virtue of its reasonableness, not by mere supposition. It must be factual, not hypothetical; supported by fact, not by surmise. If plaintiff’s forecast of evidence of malice is “not sufficient to permit reasonable minds to conclude” that the reporter’s presumed good faith was nonexistent, then summary judgment for defendant is proper.

Rule 706(a) permits a trial court to appoint an expert to value a marital asset, but leaves that decision to the court’s discretion.

Grasty v. Grasty · filed 1997-04-01Rule 706(a)

In any event, the decision to appoint an expert and to call that expert as a witness are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court.

Rule 702 requires HGN test results to be presented by a qualified expert after a foundation establishes the test’s reliability.

State v. Helms · filed 1997-09-02Rule 702

The test therefore represents specialized knowledge that must be presented to the jury by a qualified expert pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702.

Rule 702(a) permits testimony about a scientific test when the expert establishes that its method is sufficiently reliable to assist the jury.

State v. Dennis · filed 1998-06-16Rule 702(a)

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (Cum. Supp. 1997), which provides that “[i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion.” ... For these reasons, we agree with the trial court that Barker’s testimony established the reliability of the “Phadebas methodology” and was therefore properly admissible.

Rules 702 and 703 govern the admissibility of scientific evidence, including expert testimony about water turbidity.

Whiteside Estates, Inc. v. Highlands Cove, L.L.C. · filed 2001-10-16Rules 702 and 703

The admissibility of scientific evidence is governed by Rules 702 and 703 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702-703 (1999). ... Sufficient evidence in the record supports the trial court’s finding. ... Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.

Rule 702(a1) allows testimony about a horizontal gaze nystagmus test administered by a trained person without requiring the State to separately prove the testing method’s reliability.

State v. Smart · filed 2009-03-17(a1)

We interpret this amendment to Rule 702(al) as obviating the need for the State to prove that the HGN testing method is sufficiently reliable.

Rule 702(a) requires a reliable method for expert testimony identifying controlled substances; visual comparison of pills with a medical reference was inadequate on this record.

State v. Ward · filed 2009-08-18Rule 702(a)

Thus, given the record in this case, we conclude that the visual identification procedure utilized here does not provide adequate “indices of reliability” sufficient to support the admission of expert testimony.

Rule 702 requires a sufficiently reliable method of proof before expert testimony based on that method is admissible.

State v. Meadows · filed 2010-01-05Rule 702

Accordingly, allowing Captain Lewis to testify as to the results of the NarTest machine was an abuse of discretion.

Rule 702 requires a scientifically valid chemical analysis to identify an alleged controlled substance unless the State establishes that another method can prove its identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Ward · filed 2010-06-17Rule 702(a)

Unless the State establishes before the trial court that another method of identification is sufficient to establish the identity of the controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt, some form of scientifically valid chemical analysis is required. This holding is limited to North Carolina Rule of Evidence 702.

Rule 702(a) excludes expert testimony identifying hydrocodone pills through visual inspection and a pharmaceutical database without chemical analysis.

State v. Brunson · filed 2010-06-01Rule 702(a)

Ms. Dewell, as an expert chemist, satisfied the requirements of Rule 702 to testify to the chemical composition of chemically analyzed drugs. However, without performing any chemical analysis on the pills, her testimony, although supported by experience and education, was tantamount to baseless speculation and equivalent to testimony of a layperson. Ms. Dewell's proffered method of proof, visual inspection, was not sufficiently reliable as a basis for expert testimony.

A blood alcohol test taken approximately three hours after driving may be admitted when the result remains probative; the delay affects its weight rather than its admissibility.

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

Under all the circumstances of this case, we hold that the result of the test had probative value and the trial court did not err in admitting it into evidence.

Rule 702 requires expert testimony to use reliable methods applied reliably, and a challenge based on new research needs support in the trial record.

State v. Perry · filed 2013-08-20Rule 702(a)(2)–(3)

Thus, Defendant’s argument focuses on the proper application of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 702(a)(2) and 702(a)(3). ... Although Defendant contends that “the current state of medical research” in the diagnosis of head injuries in children rendered the testimony of the State’s witnesses “unreliable,” we cannot evaluate the validity of this claim in the absence of record evidence establishing what the current state of medical research into the subject of childhood head injuries actually is.

Rule 702(a1)(1) permits a qualified witness with proper foundation and HGN training to testify about impairment based on HGN test results; the trial court may recognize the witness as an expert implicitly.

State v. Godwin · filed 2017-06-09Rule 702(a1)(1)

In overruling defendant’s objection, the trial court implicitly found that Officer Kennerly was qualified to testify as an expert, and as such, in accordance with the guidance in Rule 702(a1), Officer Kennerly could “give expert testimony solely on the issue of impairment and not on the issue of specific alcohol concentration level.”

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified expert to testify about HGN test results without a separate inquiry into the reliability of HGN testing.

State v. Younts · filed 2017-07-18(a)(2)

Under the newly amended Rule 702(a), a trial court need not inquire about the reliability of HGN evidence before admitting an officer or other qualified expert to testify about the results of a particular HGN test.

Rule 702(a1) permits a qualified officer trained in HGN testing to testify about test results without a formal tender as an expert.

State v. Sauls · filed 2017-09-19Rule 702(a1)

Under Godwin, it was simply unnecessary for the State to make a formal tender of the trooper as an expert on HGN testing, and the trial court committed no error, much less plain error, in allowing the testimony.

Rule 702 excludes retrograde extrapolation testimony when the expert’s assumption that the driver was in a post-absorptive state lacks support in the facts of the case.

State v. Hayes · filed 2017-11-21Rule 702(a)(1) and (3)

In accordance with State v. Babich, ___ N.C. App. ___, 797 S.E.2d 359 (2017), we hold that the expert’s testimony was inadmissible under the Daubert standard that applies to Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence.

Rule 702 treats HGN testing as sufficiently reliable to admit testimony about its results as evidence of impairment.

State v. Barker · filed 2017-12-19Rule 702(a1)(1)

Because Rule 702 established that HGN tests are sufficiently reliable to be admitted in our courts, the trial court in the present case did not abuse its discretion in admitting the results of the HGN test.

Rule 702(a1)(2) permits a qualified drug recognition expert to testify about impairment and the category of impairing substance; the legislature has deemed this evidence reliable.

State v. Fincher · filed 2018-04-17(a1)(2)

Lastly, pursuant to the text of subsection (a1)(2) of Rule 702, it is clear that the General Assembly has indicated its desire that Drug Recognition Evidence—like the evidence given by DRE Officer Fry—be admitted, and that this type of evidence has already been determined to be reliable and based on sufficient facts and data.

Rule 702(a1)(2) permits a qualified drug recognition expert to give an opinion on whether a person was under the influence of impairing substances.

State v. Neal · filed 2019-09-17(a1)(2)

Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Sgt. Fowler’s testimony on this point. See id.; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a1)(2) (allowing a qualified DRE to give an opinion as to whether “a person was under the influence of one or more impairing substances”).

Rule 702 treats substantial similarity between an experiment and the event as part of the reliability inquiry, subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion.

State v. Turner · filed 2020-10-06Rule 702(a)(3)

This means that the older case law requiring de novo appellate review of substantial similarity is no longer good law—the question of substantial similarity is part of a Rule 702 analysis subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Rule 410 leaves it to the trial court to decide whether fairness permits questions about plea discussions after the defendant introduces statements from those discussions.

State v. Thompson · filed 2001-01-16Rule 410

Whether the evidence elicited by the State’s questions was admissible under Rule 410 for the purposes of fairness was a determination for the trial court, and hence the evidence was not incompetent as a matter of law.

Rule 410(4) does not exclude statements to law enforcement when no plea offer has been made and the statements were not made during plea discussions with a prosecuting attorney.

State v. Curry · filed 2002-10-01Rule 410(4)

As no offer had been laid on the table, Defendant’s statement to law enforcement could not have been made “in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority.”

Rule 410 bars the State from using a defendant’s conditional offers to plead guilty during plea discussions to cross-examine the defendant.

State v. Walker · filed 2004-12-07Rule 410

As a result, we hold that these letters constituted a “plea discussion” within the intent and meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1025 and Rule 410 of the Rules of Evidence, and it was impermissible for the State to cross-examine Walker concerning those plea negotiations.

Rule 410(4) excludes statements made during plea discussions with a prosecutor, but a defendant’s requests to the trial court after the prosecutor rejected his proposed sentence are not protected plea discussions.

State v. Haymond · filed 2010-04-06Rule 410(4)

Rule 410 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides that “[a]ny statement made [by a defendant] in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn” is inadmissible at trial. ... From this evidence, it does not appear that defendant subjectively thought that he was negotiating a plea with the prosecuting attorney or with the prosecutor’s express authority when he made statements at the 7 January 2008 hearing. Instead, the statements were made in the course of defendant’s various requests to the trial court. Thus, defendant’s argument that these statements were made during the course of plea negotiations, and thus inadmissible, fails.

Rule 106 requires an opposing party seeking to complete a recorded statement to offer the omitted portion contemporaneously with the admitted portion.

State v. Lloyd · filed 2001-10-05Rule 106

However, defendant’s argument fails because he did not seek to introduce the excluded parts of his police statement contemporaneously as required by the statute, but instead sought to introduce them on rebuttal.

Rule 106 requires a party seeking to admit additional statements under the rule of completeness to show that the admitted statement was taken out of context and that the additional statements explain or relate to it.

State v. Castrejon · filed 2006-10-17Rule 106

Here, Castrejon and Gonzalez must demonstrate that the statement showing Castrejon gave the police a false name upon arrest was taken out of context when introduced into evidence and Castrejon’s allegedly exculpatory statements were explanatory of or relevant to his giving the police the name “Jose Roman.”

Rule 106 does not automatically exclude an incomplete written statement; a party seeking to add omitted portions must show that they are explanatory or relevant and seek to introduce them at trial.

State v. Hall · filed 2008-12-02Rule 106

Given that defendant wrote the letters at issue, he was in the best position to know whether the excluded parts of the letters would have been either explanatory or relevant. To the extent that they would have aided in his defense, defendant had a duty to obtain those letters from Goins during discovery and contemporaneously seek to introduce the excluded portions at trial. Therefore, we hold that defendant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion under Rule 106 by allowing the State to introduce the photocopied portions of the letters that defendant wrote to Goins while he was awaiting trial.

Rule 106’s contemporaneity requirement did not bar admission of the remaining interview notes during the State’s case after the defendant used a portion of them to create a misleading impression.

State v. Hensley · filed 2017-06-20Rule 106

On these facts, we reject defendant’s claim that the contemporaneity requirement of Rule 106 was violated.

Rule 106 permits an adverse party to require contemporaneous admission of another recorded statement when fairness requires it to explain or place the admitted statement in context.

State v. Broyhill · filed 2017-07-18Rule 106

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the trial court correctly applied Rule 106 in its decision to exclude the first two statements at trial.

Rule 106 allows an adverse party to require admission of another part of a recorded statement when fairness calls for it to be considered with the admitted part.

State v. Vann · filed 2018-10-02Rule 106

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 106 (2017) codifies the common law Rule of Completeness and states: “When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.” ... Defendant’s exculpatory statement to his grandmother was “neither explanatory of nor relevant to” his admitted statements regarding whether the police found the gun.

Rule 802 permits hearsay when authorized by statute, and an affidavit may be admitted at a foreclosure hearing de novo when the need for expeditious procedure outweighs its weakness as proof.

In Re Foreclosure of Real Property · filed 2003-03-18Rule 802

Hearsay evidence “is not admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules.” ... We hold that, in the instant case, the “necessity for expeditious procedure” substantially outweighs any concerns about the efficacy of allowing Milchak to testify by affidavit, and the trial court properly admitted her affidavit into evidence.

Rule 609(b)'s limit on using older convictions to impeach a witness does not bar their use as aggravating evidence in attorney discipline.

North Carolina State Bar v. Rogers · filed 2004-06-01Rule 609(b)

Thus, Rule 609 is inapplicable, and the evidence of defendant's prior convictions and suspension of his law license was admissible as evidence of an aggravating factor.

Rule 404(b) permits prior driving convictions to show malice in a second-degree murder case.

State v. Scott · filed 2020-01-21Rule 404(b)

The State argues the evidence of Defendant’s prior traffic offenses is properly admitted under Rule 404(b) and shows his intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake to support malice as an essential element of second-degree murder. We agree.

Rule 601(c) disqualifies an interested party’s testimony about oral communications with a decedent against the estate when the estate did not elicit the testimony and promptly objected to it.

Estate of Redden Ex Rel. Morley v. Redden · filed 2009-01-06Rule 601(c)

Upon consideration, we hold that decedent’s oral communications with defendant were offered by defendant in her deposition, not by the Estate, and that the Estate timely objected to these communications and moved to strike the incompetent portions, thus preserving the protections of the Dead Man’s Statute.

Rule 601(c)'s protection is waived when a party elicits the testimony through interrogatories.

Woods v. Mangum · filed 2009-09-15Rule 601(c)

Even if the Estate had preserved this objection and properly assigned it as error, it waived the protection of the dead man's statute by eliciting this testimony through interrogatories.

Rule 601(c)'s protection is not waived when a party's discovery requests do not seek oral communications with the decedent, even if the opposing party volunteers them.

Weeks v. Jackson · filed 2010-09-21Rule 601(c)

We do not impute a waiver of Rule 601(c) to Executor simply because Defendants attempted to file answers to questions not asked by Executor.

Rule 601(c) limits the Dead Man's Statute's exclusion of testimony to oral communications.

In Re Will of Baitschora · filed 2010-09-21(c)

The current formulation prohibits only oral communications.

Rule 601(c) rulings receive de novo review, with considerable deference to the trial court on relevance-based questions, including whether a party opened the door to otherwise prohibited testimony.

State of North Carolina Durham County Martin Totorgul v. Abayhan · filed 2010-09-21(c)

As a result, the standard of review for use in this case is one that involves a de novo examination of the trial court’s ruling, with considerable deference to be given to the decision made by the trial court in light of the relevance-based inquiries that are inherent in the resolution of certain issues involving application of Rule 601(c), including the provisions which result in “opening the door” to the admission of otherwise prohibited testimony.

Rule 601(c) restricts testimony by interested persons about oral communications with a decedent; a challenge to excluded testimony warrants no relief when the testimony was heard or its exclusion caused no prejudice.

In re Estate of Pickelsimer · filed 2015-08-18Rule 601(c)

Therefore, we find no merit to caveators' contention that the trial court erred by excluding testimony as to Charles' statements that would shed light on his relationship with his children or on his mental condition where in fact the challenged statement "I am not mentally up for it right now" was not excluded. Accordingly, we find caveators suffered no prejudicial error and overrule caveators' argument that the trial court erred in excluding testimony of statements made by Charles under the Dead Man's Statute.

Rule 601(c)’s dead man’s rule concerns witness testimony at trial or a merits hearing and does not bar allegations in a pleading.

DRAPKIN v. MJALLI · filed 2020-02-20Rule 601(c)

While North Carolina’s dead man’s rule may prevent Defendant from testifying as to this matter at trial, it does not prevent the inclusion of such allegations at the pleading stage.

Rule 601(c) bars an interested party’s testimony about oral communications with a deceased person when the action is against the deceased person’s estate.

Crosland v. Patrick · filed 2020-09-15Rule 601(c)

Such oral communications, however, are barred by the Dead Man’s Statute because Wife is an interested party and Husband is no longer able to respond. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 601(c) (2019).

Rule 601(c)’s Dead Man’s Statute concerns admissibility of evidence, so an objection under it is premature as a defense in an answer before admissibility is at issue.

Merrell v. Smith · filed 2020-10-22Rule 601(c)

The Dead Man’s Statute could very well end up being relevant later on in this litigation, perhaps in the summary judgment or trial setting. However, the Court finds it unusual, and indeed impertinent, that the Smiths have pleaded this evidentiary “objection” as a defense in their Answers to Plaintiffs’ Complaints, since the Court is certainly not considering the admissibility of evidence at this stage of the litigation. ... As a result, the Court, in its discretion, will strike the Smiths’ Dead Man’s Statute “defense” from the Answers without prejudice to them raising this evidentiary objection at an appropriate time.

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the rules of evidence inapplicable to probation violation hearings.

State v. Blow · filed 2010-04-06Rule 1101(b)(3)

The trial court is not bound by the rules of evidence when conducting probation violation hearings. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (2007).

Rule 1101(b)(3) makes the Rules of Evidence, except those concerning privileges, inapplicable to probation revocation hearings.

State v. Hemingway · filed 2021-07-20Rule 1101(b)(3)

“Similarly, our Rules of Evidence, other than those concerning privileges, do not apply in proceedings for ‘sentencing, or granting or revoking probation.’” Murchison, 367 N.C. at 464, 758 S.E.2d at 358 (quoting N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 1101(b)(3) (2013)). Accordingly, the trial court has “great discretion to admit any evidence relevant to the revocation of [the] defendant’s probation.”

Rule 414 limits evidence offered to prove past medical expenses to amounts actually paid or still due.

Sigmon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2019-11-14Rule 414

Therefore, Rule 414 plainly prohibits Plaintiff from introducing evidence of his medical bills in excess of the amount actually paid or due to prove his past medical expenses.

Rule 414 limits evidence of satisfied past medical bills to the amounts actually paid.

Carmely v. United States · filed 2023-03-01Rule 414

Thus, Defendant’s motion is granted, and Plaintiff's evidence of past medical expenses will be limited, under Rule 414, “to evidence of the amounts actually paid to satisfy the bills that have been satisfied.”

Rule 414 permits evidence that a hospital would accept less than the amount claimed in a medical lien to challenge the reasonableness of the bill.

Sykes v. Vixamar · filed 2019-06-18Rule 414

Evidence that the hospital would accept less than the amount claimed in a medical lien to satisfy the underlying bill is admissible to challenge the reasonableness of the bill. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-58.1(b) (the presumption of reasonableness of medical charges is rebutted by “sworn testimony that the charge for that provider’s service . . . can be satisfied by a payment of an amount less than the amount charged”); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 414. Defendants in these cases may seek discovery on this issue and courts should freely admit this evidence at trial.

Rule 612 permits a witness to use a memory aid to refresh recollection when the witness cannot recall relevant details.

State v. Madsen · filed 2026-01-21Rule 612

At this point in her testimony, Iris’s inability to recall the specifics of the incident, which occurred approximately five years before trial when she was seven, warranted refreshing.