N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to describe a room's condition through conclusions drawn from firsthand sensory observations.

State v. Greene · filed 2017-05-16Rule 701

This type of testimony is precisely the type contemplated by Rule 701 for lay witnesses: Rebecca's mother "state[d] the instantaneous conclusions of [her] mind as to the appearance, condition, or ... physical state of ... things, derived from observation of a variety of facts presented to the senses at one and the same time."

Rule 701 does not govern a witness’s shorthand observations of a person’s demeanor when they are not opinions about that person’s credibility.

State v. Orellana · filed 2018-06-19Rule 701

This testimony concerning V.R.’s demeanor does not constitute an opinion as to the credibility of V.R. that is subject to Rule 701.

Rule 701 permits a law enforcement officer's lay opinion when it is based on the officer's perception and experience and helps the jury understand the investigation.

State v. Kingsberry · filed 2019-02-05Rule 701

Agent Baldwin's statements were rationally based on his perception and experience which were helpful to the jury. Therefore, we reject defendant's assertion that Agent Baldwin provided impermissible opinion testimony by vouching for the credibility of a witness, and conclude that the challenged testimony was not erroneously admitted.

Rule 701 does not permit a lay witness to identify a vehicle’s driver through accident reconstruction when the available facts cannot support an expert opinion on that issue.

State v. Denton · filed 2019-06-04Rule 701

This case is similar to Shaw in that the facts about the accident and measurements available were simply not sufficient to support an expert opinion — as Trooper Souther testified — and lay opinion testimony on this issue is not admissible under Rule 701.

Rule 701(a) permits a lay witness to give an opinion about the pace of gunfire when a sufficient foundation shows the opinion is rationally based on the witness’s perception.

State v. Morrison · filed 2020-08-04(a)

Although the State could have been more thorough in laying the foundation for Mr. Mortenson’s testimony differentiating between the sound of, and spacing between, automatic and semi-automatic rifle fire, the foundation laid was sufficient to support the testimony.

Rule 701 does not permit a lay witness to speculate about another person’s intentions when the opinion is not based on the witness’s perception and jurors can draw the inference themselves.

State v. Malone-Bullock · filed 2021-08-03Rule 701

This testimony was not based on Mr. Saxton’s perception, as is required by Rule 701, and he was in no better position than the jurors to deduce whether Defendant was responsible for Mr. Battle shooting him.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to identify a person in surveillance footage when the witness’s familiarity puts the witness in a better position than the jury to make the identification.

State v. McKoy · filed 2021-06-01Rule 701

Accordingly, Wheeless was qualified to give lay opinion testimony identifying the individual in the Sheetz Footage as Defendant. The admission of Wheeless’s testimony was not error, let alone plain error.

Rule 701 excludes a lay witness’s opinion that someone was driving when the witness did not personally observe that person driving.

State v. Burris · filed 2023-07-05Rule 701

We agree that the trooper’s opinion testimony that Defendant was the driver was inadmissible because the trooper did not personally observe Defendant driving the vehicle.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to opine that a person’s lack of detailed memory is normal when the opinion rests on a rational perception that memories fade with time.

State v. Heyne · filed 2024-05-07Rule 701(a)

The trial court could reasonably have considered Hemmings’ opinion was based on her rational perception that memories fade with time. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Hemmings’ lay opinion testimony.

Rule 701 permits lay identification of a defendant in surveillance video when the witness’s familiarity with the defendant makes the opinion helpful to the jury.

State v. Taylor · filed 2022-12-29Rule 701

Reviewing the evidence in light of the above caselaw, we hold that the trial court could rationally conclude that the officers’ lay opinion testimony identifying Defendant on the surveillance video was admissible under Rule 701.

Rule 701 permits an officer to give lay opinion testimony about bullet trajectory based on personal observations and the use of dowel rods when the testimony requires no specialized knowledge.

State v. Townsend · filed 2025-05-21Rule 701

Thus, Detective Waddell’s testimony was properly considered lay opinion testimony. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting this testimony under Rule 701.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony based on a witness’s firsthand knowledge when it helps the jury understand testimony or determine a fact in issue.

State v. Satapathy · filed 2025-06-18Rule 701(b)

Rule 701(b) permits lay opinion testimony if the testimony is helpful to the jury in “clarifying a witness’ testimony or helpful to determine a fact in issue.” ... The witnesses’ opinions are based on first-hand knowledge and are helpful for the jury to understand Defendant’s state of mind before, during, and after the night of 7 May 2021.

Rule 701 permits an officer to explain investigative steps taken after receiving forensic results when the officer does not offer an opinion on the expert’s conclusions.

State v. Jett · filed 2025-09-17Rule 701

Such testimony does not run afoul of Rule 701. Indeed, we have expressly held that testimony elicited to assist the jury in understanding a law enforcement officer’s investigative process is admissible under Rule 701. ... Viewed in context, McArthur described his investigative process and recounted facts that led him to (1) identify defendant as a suspect and (2) obtain a buccal swab from defendant.

Rule 701 permits lay opinions about surveillance footage when they help explain a witness’s investigative process.

State v. Whichard · filed 2025-12-03Rule 701

As Officer Bowen’s opinion testimony was “helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony” regarding his investigative process, the trial court did not err in allowing it.

Rule 701 permits a witness familiar with a defendant’s appearance to identify the defendant in surveillance footage when that familiarity makes the testimony helpful to the jury.

State v. Williams · filed 2026-01-07Rule 701

Under these circumstances, the officers’ testimony was admissible and helpful to the jury.

Rules 602 and 701 permit an officer to testify about observed conduct and to give a shorthand inference grounded in those observations.

State v. Black-Roberts · filed 2026-04-01Rules 602 and 701

Further, the portion of Officer Phillips’s testimony that Defendant was “trying to obstruct [his] view of sight” was admissible as a shorthand statement of fact because it was based on his perception of Defendant’s demeanor, Defendant’s admission “that she couldn’t possess firearms because she was a felon[,]” and his observation of ammunition on the center console.

Rule 405(a) permits cross-examination about specific conduct that rebuts character testimony and sets no time limit on that conduct.

State v. Cummings · filed 1992-11-19Rule 405(a)

A "relevant" specific instance of conduct under Rule 405(a) would be any conduct that rebuts the earlier reputation or opinion testimony offered by the defendant. Rule 405(a) contains no time limit, as does Rule of Evidence 609 (impeachment by prior conviction), and we see no reason to impose one.

Rule 404(b) bars evidence of a person’s prior crimes when offered only to show that the person acted in conformity with that character in the crime at issue.

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

Furthermore, “[E]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1988). Accordingly, evidence that Speedy Mills had committed crimes against his previous wives was inadmissible if its only purpose was to prove his character in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith by killing his third wife.

Rule 405(a) permits cross-examination of a character witness about her knowledge of specific acts of misconduct by the defendant.

State v. Maynor · filed 1992-06-25Rule 405(a)

The trial court erroneously sustained the defendant’s objection when the State attempted to cross-examine Chavis about her knowledge of several incidents of violence by the defendant against Theresa Oxendine. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 405(a). (1991).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime when it tends to prove a material fact beyond the defendant’s criminal propensity.

State v. Garner · filed 1992-06-25Rule 404(b)

Here, the evidence concerning the defendant’s attempted murder of the taxicab driver three weeks later with the same gun tended to prove the defendant’s possession and control of the weapon at a time close in proximity to that of the Harrelson murder. Therefore, although the evidence also showed the defendant to be guilty of another crime of violence, we cannot say that its only probative value was to show the defendant’s murderous propensities. Thus, the evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits other acts evidence to establish identity and possession when it is relevant to an issue beyond criminal propensity.

State v. Hunter · filed 1992-09-15Rule 404(b)

In this situation, the evidence of the speeding citation, appointment book and zip lock baggies were offered for admission to show that the defendant exercised control or had possession of the tote bag and the trial court allowed its admission for “establishing identity and possession.” As such, this evidence was admitted for a proper purpose within Rule 404(b), and the admission of the citation was also proper as being relevant to any other fact or issue.

Rule 404(b) treats a defendant’s prior conversation about committing robberies as other-acts evidence that may be admitted to show a plan.

State v. Wilson · filed 1992-12-01Rule 404(b)

At the outset we note that evidence of defendant’s prior conversation with Hyde constitutes evidence of another “crime, wrong, or act,” as those terms are used under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s prior misconduct toward his wife to establish lack of accident, intent, malice, premeditation, and deliberation.

State v. Syriani · filed 1993-03-12Rule 404(b)

We hold the cross-examination with regard to both defendant’s specific and general misconduct toward his wife proper under Rule 404(b) because the State proffered the evidence to establish lack of accident, intent, malice, premeditation and deliberation, not to prove that defendant acted in conformity with a violent character.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes or wrongs when it is relevant to an issue other than the accused’s character.

State v. Rannels · filed 1993-06-04Rule 404(b)

The complained of evidence was clearly admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior crime to show motive, method, or identity when the incidents are sufficiently similar and the prior crime is not too remote in time.

State v. Wilson · filed 1992-06-02Rule 404(b)

Upon review, this Court finds that the first part of the test is clearly met. The evidence presented by the State of the 1975 armed robbery is sufficiently similar to the crimes charged here to be admitted for the purpose of showing a modus operandi, motive and even identity. In both 1975 and 1988, defendant was armed, wore a ski mask and gloves, ordered people present to lie face down on the floor, and took cash. Furthermore, we hold this evidence not too remote in time.

Rule 404(a)(2) permits the State to introduce evidence of a homicide victim’s peacefulness only after the defendant presents evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

State v. Faison · filed 1991-12-06Rule 404(a)(2)

We agree with Professor- Brandis and hold true to our prior case law that the State cannot introduce evidence of the victim’s peacefulness until after defendant has put forward evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another offense to show a common plan or scheme when the offenses are sufficiently related.

State v. Maye · filed 1991-11-05Rule 404(b)

Applying the above law to the facts in . this case, we find the evidence relating to the defendant’s involvement in the 24 August 1989 offense was properly admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to show modus operandi when the crimes are sufficiently similar and the evidence’s probative value is not outweighed by prejudice.

State v. Reid · filed 1991-11-05Rule 404(b)

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b), evidence of other crimes may be admitted so long as it is relevant to any fact or issue other than the defendant’s character. ... Applying these general principles to the present case, we hold that the trial court did not err.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act when it is relevant to motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or absence of accident.

State v. Stager · filed 1991-08-14Rule 404(b)

Evidence concerning the death of the defendant’s first husband, Larry Ford, and the surrounding circumstances was relevant evidence tending to disprove her assertions and to support findings contrary to those assertions. Therefore, that evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) as evidence tending to show motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge or absence of accident.

Rules 404(b) and 403 permit evidence of a therapist’s prior sexual relationships with patients to show a scheme or intent when the evidence passes the prejudice balancing test.

MacClements v. LaFone · filed 1991-10-01Rule 404(b); Rule 403

Testimony of these prior relationships with defendant’s patients is admissible under N.C.R. Evid. 404(b). It tends to demonstrate defendant’s scheme or intent to take advantage of female patients being treated by him at MMHC. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony under the balancing test of N.C.R. Evid. 403.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of earlier misconduct to show a defendant’s motive for the charged offense.

State v. Jacobs · filed 1992-01-07Rule 404(b)

This evidence was admissible under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b) to show defendant’s motive to steal and burn the vehicle.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence associated with an unrelated arrest to prove identity when its relevance extends beyond showing criminal propensity.

State v. Suddreth · filed 1992-01-21Rule 404(b)

The probative value of the evidence in this case was something other than to show merely the defendant had the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged. Since under the circumstances the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant, the trial court properly admitted the picture and report.

Rules 404(b) and 403 permit evidence of similar, recent offenses to show intent or motive when its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

State v. Morgan · filed 1991-08-14Rule 404(b), Rule 403

We hold that the trial court correctly concluded that evidence of defendant’s earlier cocaine transactions with Queen was admissible to show his intent and motive with regard to the conspiracy with which he was subsequently charged, and that the court’s determination that the probative value of this particular evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect was well within its sound discretion.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of an uncharged crime to prove motive when it helps explain the charged crime, but evidence offered to prove identity must show sufficient similarities between the crimes.

State v. Haskins · filed 1991-12-17Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, the evidence of the crime in Butner has no relevance with regard to proof of the identity of the 7-11 perpetrator, and is therefore inadmissible for this purpose. ... Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the Butner shooting and attempted robbery on the issue of defendant’s motive for the 7-11 robbery in Oxford.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show intent or plan when the acts are similar to and not too distant in time from the charged conduct.

State v. Young · filed 1991-07-16Rule 404(b)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1988) allows evidence of prior bad acts by the defendant to prove, among other things, motive, opportunity, plan, and intent. The incident involving Spring Fowler occurred, according to Carla’s testimony, during the same time defendant was assaulting her. Spring Fowler’s testimony was thus admissible to show defendant’s plan of sexual activity with young girls. Likewise, the magazine was admissible to show defendant’s intentions and plans to perform specific sexual acts with his victim.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act to clarify an ambiguous statement when the evidence serves a purpose other than showing character or propensity.

State v. McKinnon · filed 1991-05-02Rule 404(b)

In light of Lewis’s testimony, the jury reasonably could infer that defendant, in a “hysterical state” shortly after an aggressive sexual encounter with Tammie Martin, was referring to Martin rather than Lewis when he confided to Vince McCall that he “beat this girl.” Thus, the challenged testimony was relevant and properly was admitted “for other purposes” under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(a)(2) permits evidence of a victim’s character trait only when the trait is pertinent; prior drinking with others did not tend to prove consent to sexual activity with the defendant.

State v. Cronan · filed 1990-11-20Rule 404(a)(2)

G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(a)(2) authorizes the admission of defense evidence whenever a character trait of the victim is pertinent in a criminal case. ... The proffered testimony as to the victim’s alcohol consumption with other people in party settings has no tendency to prove that the victim consented to sexual activity with the defendant on the day in question.

Rule 404(a)(2) allows the prosecution to introduce evidence of a victim’s character only to rebut evidence challenging it.

State v. Quick · filed 1991-06-12Rule 404(a)(2)

Thus, the rule allows the prosecution to introduce evidence of a victim’s character only to rebut defendant’s evidence calling it into question. At the time of Patterson’s testimony, there had been no challenge to the victim’s character and there was no evidence that the victim was the aggressor. The admission of the witness’s opinion as to the victim’s reputation in the community was therefore error.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to prove a common plan when the acts are sufficiently similar and close in time to the charged offense.

State v. Richardson · filed 1990-09-04Rule 404(b)

Under Rule 404(b) “[ejvidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.” G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b). ... Under these circumstances we hold that the evidence was sufficiently similar to justify its admission as proof of a common plan or scheme.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other offenses to show a common plan or identity when the incidents are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Cummings · filed 1991-06-04Rule 404(b)

Additionally, we note that even if the motion to sever had been allowed and each offense had been tried separately, evidence of the other two offenses would have been admissible at each trial to show both a common scheme or plan and identity. ... G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b) is consistent with prior North Carolina practice. ... Here, the evidence establishes a similar modus operandi in all three cases.

Rule 404(a)(1) excludes workplace character evidence unrelated to the charged crimes, although the prosecution may rebut evidence of a good employment record that the defendant introduced.

State v. Ronald Junior Cotton · filed 1990-08-07Rule 404(a)(1)

His employment record had no relevance to any of those offenses. Thus, neither the defendant's evidence that he was a good employee nor the State's rebuttal evidence of his bad conduct toward fellow employees was admissible under Rule 404(a)(1). ... Therefore, while the State would not have been allowed to introduce, in the first instance, evidence of the defendant's bad conduct toward fellow employees, we hold that the trial court did not err in allowing the State to rebut the defendant's evidence of a good employment record.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior assault to prove malice, subject to the trial court’s discretion to exclude it under Rule 403 for unfair prejudice.

State v. Simpson · filed 1990-07-26Rules 404(b) and 403

The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 in admitting the evidence of defendant’s prior assault on the victim, nor did it err in admitting the evidence under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of an earlier larceny to show intent to commit larceny during a later breaking.

State v. Evans · filed 1990-06-19Rule 404(b)

We hold that evidence of defendant’s guilt of the earlier larceny was properly considered by the jury in determining whether defendant had the intent to commit larceny when he broke into the second apartment.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to show motive and a pattern of conduct when its relevance substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Ross · filed 1990-09-04Rule 404(b)

We hold that this evidence was highly relevant and that its relevance substantially outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice, confusion or misleading of the jury. The witness was previously in the presence of the defendant with the victims and he observed the victims engaging in homosexual acts with the defendant. This testimony was used to show motive and a pattern of conduct toward the victims consistent with the State's theory of the case. It was properly admitted. See G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1988).

Rule 403 requires courts to weigh the probative value of other acts evidence against its potential prejudice.

State v. Hinson · filed 1991-03-05Rule 403

“Nevertheless, the ultimate test for determining whether such evidence is admissible is whether the incidents are sufficiently similar and not so remote in time as to be more probative than prejudicial under the balancing test of N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 403.” ... After careful review of the record, we find that the questions concerning the condoms were admissible to show “proof of intent, preparation, plan, knowledge and absence of mistake.” However, it was error for the trial court to allow questions concerning the other evidence; but, we note that defendant entered a general objection at the beginning of cross-examination and failed to renew his objection when evidence of similar import was admitted.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior malicious conduct toward a murder victim to show malice and motive.

State v. Terry · filed 1991-06-12Rule 404(b)

Evidence that defendant had given Mr. Greene the defaced photographic enlargements tended to show defendant’s malice toward the Greenes, defendant’s fixation on Mrs. Greene, and defendant’s motive to kill Mr. Greene. This evidence was relevant because it involved prior malicious behavior toward the very person defendant was accused of murdering.

Rule 404(a) does not bar testimony about a defendant’s character when it is offered to explain a witness’s conduct rather than to prove the defendant acted in conformity with that character.

State v. Barnes · filed 1985-10-01Rule 404(a)

Defendant argues that this testimony violated the provision of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(a) of the Rules of Evidence, which provides that evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. We disagree. The disputed testimony was not elicited to show the bad character of defendant, but to explain why Roshelle had not told her mother about the incident. We find it to be relevant for that purpose.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to prove identity or plan when its probative value outweighs the risk of undue prejudice, considering other available means of proof.

State v. Bartow · filed 1985-10-01Rule 404(b)

The evidence in question here was clearly relevant and competent for purposes other than to show defendant’s character. Because of certain similarities between the robbery and the 26 February 1984 incident, Huth’s rebuttal testimony was particularly relevant to show identity and plan. The risk of undue prejudice resulting from the admission of the evidence was relatively slight and does not appear to have outweighed the probative value of the evidence, even in view of the possible availability of other means of proof. We therefore find no error in the admission of this evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to prove where a defendant lived or the defendant’s knowledge of marijuana.

State v. Johnson · filed 1985-12-03Rule 404(b)

G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b) provides: “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.” We find that the photographs, which were found in defendant’s kitchen, were admissible as evidence that defendant was living at the house on Godwin Town Road, rather than at Jernigan’s Airport as Evans Johnson testified. They were also admissible to show defendant’s knowledge of the controlled substance marijuana.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar conduct to show identity or a common plan or scheme.

State v. Head · filed 1986-02-04Rule 404(b)

Defendant first contends that the whole of Ms. Ward’s testimony should have been struck as irrelevant. We disagree. The testimony was to show, by its parallels to the experience of Dianne Gabriel, identity and common plan or scheme of defendant to lure female real estate agents to his house.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to prove a plan only when the acts tend to establish a plan for the charged crime.

State v. Weaver · filed 1986-02-04Rule 404(b)

G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b) says one purpose for which evidence of other crimes may be admitted is to prove a plan. We do not believe that evidence that the defendant had sold tools to Carl Rutledge in the past proves a plan to steal tools from Buddy Edison. It was error to admit this testimony. We cannot say this testimony did not affect the outcome of the trial. We hold it was prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

Rule 404(b) bars evidence of other crimes offered to show criminal character, but permits it when reasonably necessary for a specific permissible purpose.

State v. McKoy · filed 1985-12-31Rule 404(b)

The first sentence of Rule 404(b) creates a presumption that evidence of other crimes is inadmissible, but the second sentence allows its admission upon a showing by the State that this evidence is reasonably necessary for a specific permissible purpose. ... Under these circumstances, the probative value, if any, of the evidence was slight and the only ascertainable purpose was to attribute a criminal disposition to defendants.

Rule 404(b) bars evidence of another wrong offered to prove a person’s character when no exception applies.

State v. Monroe · filed 1986-01-07Rule 404(b)

It appears to us that this evidence of another wrong by defendant was offered to prove his character. It does not fit any of the exceptions of Rule 404(b). It was error to allow this testimony.

Rule 412’s in camera hearing addresses the complainant’s sexual activity other than the acts charged, so questions about the charged acts are outside its scope.

State v. Mason · filed 1986-02-18Rule 412(a)

These questions did not present inquiry into evidence of sexual activity of Ms. Hemmert other than the sexual acts which were in issue, ie., the rape and sexual offense, and so were not the proper subject of an in camera examination conducted pursuant to N.C. R. Evid. 412.

Section 8C-1 does not allow prior assaults to be used to impeach a witness under Rule 608(b) when they do not bear on truthfulness, or to show under Rule 404(b) that an accused was the aggressor because of a violent character.

State v. Morgan · filed 1986-02-18Rules 404(b), 608(b)

We conclude that the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant in this case concerning an alleged specific instance of misconduct, i.e., two assaults by pointing a gun at two people during the same incident, was improper under Rule 608(b) because extrinsic instances of assaultive behavior, standing alone, are not in any way probative of the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. ... It was error for the trial court to allow, over defendant's objection, the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant regarding alleged extrinsic acts of misconduct in order to circumstantially prove defendant's character for violence as the basis for an inference that defendant was the aggressor in the affray and could not have acted in self-defense.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other sexual acts to show a common plan or scheme to sexually abuse children.

State v. DeLeonardo · filed 1986-02-18Rule 404(b)

In the case sub judice, as in Williams, Effler, and Goforth, the challenged evidence tends to establish a common plan or scheme on the part of defendant to sexually abuse his children. Therefore, the evidence relating to sexual activity involving defendant’s three-year-old daughter was properly admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 405(b) permits evidence of a victim’s specific violent acts in a self-defense case only if the defendant knew of those acts at the time.

State v. Shoemaker · filed 1986-04-01Rule 405(b)

Under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 405(b), evidence of specific instances of conduct is admissible when proving character only if character “is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense . . . .” ... Thus, the conduct becomes relevant only if defendant knew about it at the time of the shooting.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to prove identity when the crimes share an unusual method of operation.

State v. Wortham · filed 1986-04-01Rule 404(b)

Such evidence of other crimes may be admissible inter alia as proof of intent, plan or identity. G.S. 8C-1, R. Ev. 404(b). ... Under Riddick, the evidence of the other incident, involving the identical unusual modus operandi, was relevant to prove defendant’s identity and hence admissible in this case.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of other crimes offered to prove a defendant's character, but permits it for purposes such as motive, intent, or identity.

State v. Fie · filed 1986-05-20Rule 404(b)

Evidence of other crimes such as possession of marijuana is not admissible to prove the character of a defendant although it may be admissible to prove such factors as motive, intent or identity. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b). ... Instead, in the light of the direct evidence against defendant and the utter irrelevance of marijuana possession to the charges on which defendant was ultimately convicted, we hold that no prejudicial error occurred.

Rule 404(b) does not allow evidence of a separate crime to prove a plan, intent, or design to commit the charged crime solely because the crimes are similar and close in time.

State v. Hamrick · filed 1986-06-17Rule 404(b)

We do not believe proof of a separate crime by itself proves a person planned to commit another crime. We cannot see how the evidence in this case was relevant to prove intent or design to commit the crime for which the defendant was tried.

Rule 404(b) permits inquiry into similar transactions to show motive, intent, plan, and knowledge.

State v. Childers · filed 1986-04-15Rule 404(b)

In our view, evidence with respect to other similar transactions in which defendant had engaged as an employee of Sun Exterminating Company was relevant to show motive, intent, plan and knowledge and was a generally permissible inquiry pursuant to G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of other non-consensual sexual activity to rebut a consent defense when that activity is irrelevant to the complainant’s consent.

State v. Bailey · filed 1986-05-20Rule 404(b)

Under the authority of Morgan, supra, we also hold that this cross-examination was not allowable under Rule 404(b) of the Evidence Code (relating to other crimes, wrongs, etc.) because of a lack of relevancy. The cross-examination questions were clearly designed to rebut defendant’s defense of consent and we cannot agree that evidence of other non-consensual sexual activity would be relevant on the question of Ms. Lancaster’s consent.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it tends to establish the defendant’s identity.

State v. Gilliam · filed 1986-07-02Rule 404(b)

This evidence clearly bears on the issue of identity. It is relevant evidence under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 and is a recognized exception to the prohibitions set forth in N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b). Therefore, we hold that the trial judge did not err in admitting the knives and razor into evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it is relevant to an issue other than the accused’s character.

State v. Weaver · filed 1986-10-07Rule 404(b)

In fact, as a careful reading of Rule 404(b) clearly shows, evidence of other offenses is admissible so long as it is relevant to any fact or issue other than the character of the accused. ... The question thus presented is whether the evidence of previous dealings between the witness and the defendant was relevant to some fact or issue other than the character of the defendant. We hold that it was and reverse the Court of Appeals.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another sexual offense when it tends to show a common plan to take sexual advantage of young daughters.

State v. Gordon · filed 1986-05-06Rule 404(b)

We conclude that Pressley’s testimony that the defendant had admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with his three-year-old daughter tended to show a common scheme or plan by the defendant to take sexual advantage of the availability and susceptibility of his young daughters. The testimony was therefore admissible under Rule 404(b).

Section 8C-1 does not permit evidence of a defendant’s bad character or unrelated criminal acts when the defendant has offered no character evidence and the acts serve none of Rule 404(b)’s permitted purposes.

State v. White · filed 1986-08-05

Defendant neither testified nor offered evidence of his good character in his own behalf. Therefore, evidence of his bad character or specific wrongful conduct was not admissible to impeach him, under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 608(a) or to rebut evidence of his character, pursuant to G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(a). The evidence elicited by the State was not indicative of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, or any of the other purposes for which evidence of other criminal acts is rendered admissible by G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b). We reject, as well, the State’s contention that defendant had somehow “opened the door” to this testimony by his cross-examination of the detective or by failing to move that the unresponsive statement be stricken. The admission of the evidence suggesting that defendant was involved with cocaine was error.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another offense to prove identity when an alibi puts identity in issue and unusual or particularly similar facts link the offenses.

State v. Williams · filed 1986-08-05Rule 404(b)

Evidence of other misconduct is admissible under the identity exception upon a showing of unusual facts present in both acts, or particularly similar acts which tend to show that the same person committed both. ... We conclude that the incidents were sufficiently similar that the evidence was properly admitted.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of another crime when it serves only to show a defendant's criminal propensity and does not prove another material fact.

State v. McKoy · filed 1986-08-12Rule 404(b)

Inasmuch as the evidence of defendant Harrison's other criminal conduct was not offered or admissible for a purpose within N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) and was not admissible because the witness was questioned about his own criminal conduct, its admission was error.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s prior acts when it helps show the victim’s fear and lack of consent, rather than merely the defendant’s character.

State v. Young · filed 1986-08-12Rule 404(b)

The defendant has failed to carry his burden of showing that there was no proper purpose for which this testimony was admissible and has failed to convince us that its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value.

Rule 412(b)(2) permits evidence of a complainant’s sexual behavior with another person when it offers an alternative explanation for physical findings used to support a charge against the defendant.

State v. Ollis · filed 1986-10-07(b)(2)

We agree with the defendant that the evidence should have been admitted, as it would have provided an alternative explanation for the medical evidence presented by Dr. Whalley and falls within exception (b)(2) of Rule 412.

Rule 803(21) allows testimony about a person’s character reputation despite the general hearsay rule.

State v. Wall · filed 1987-11-17Rule 803(21)

Though the inquiries concerned hearsay statements they were not banned by the general rule against hearsay. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 803(21), N.C. Rules of Evidence.

Rule 404(a)(1) requires an accused’s character evidence to address a particular relevant trait, which may be general in nature.

State v. Squire · filed 1988-02-03Rule 404(a)(1)

Under the present rule, an accused must tailor his character evidence to a “pertinent” trait, but the trait may be general in nature provided that it is relevant in the context of the crime charged.

Rule 404(a) permits an accused to offer character evidence only about a trait relevant to an issue in the case.

State v. Fultz · filed 1988-11-15Rule 404(a)

The trial court limited the character evidence introduced by defendant to evidence directed to pertinent character traits. ... The trial court’s ruling was proper and the assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 404(a)(1) permits an accused to offer a pertinent character trait as evidence of innocence, but truthfulness and honesty are not pertinent to marijuana trafficking by possession or transportation.

State v. Bogle · filed 1989-03-02Rule 404(a)(1)

Consequently, we hold that the traits of truthfulness and honesty are not “pertinent” character traits to the crime of trafficking in marijuana by possession or transportation.

Rule 404(b) permits substantially similar other acts evidence to show a common plan, subject to Rule 403’s balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice.

State v. Matheson · filed 1993-06-15Rule 404(b); Rule 403

We hold that the testimony of Caroline Sibley was admissible. The testimony was substantially similar to that of the victim in this case and was therefore relevant to show a common plan or scheme on the part of defendant to sexually assault his stepdaughters. ... We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the probative value of Sibley’s testimony outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior bad acts to prove intent, knowledge, or a plan when it is not offered to show action in conformity with character.

State v. Morgan · filed 1993-08-17Rule 404(b)

We find that the evidence in this case was not offered to show action in conformity. The evidence that defendant had been seen selling drugs showed intent or knowledge of the possession. ... Finally, the evidence of the controlled sale showed an ongoing plan to distribute cocaine. We conclude that the State had legitimate reasons to offer all of this evidence of defendant’s prior misdeeds, and that the evidence demonstrated a plan to distribute cocaine and was probative of that issue.

Rule 404(b) allows evidence of other acts to explain a victim’s delayed report when its purpose is not merely to show the defendant’s character or propensity to commit the charged crime.

State v. Bynum · filed 1993-09-07Rule 404(b)

Likewise, here the evidence was not proffered to show the defendant’s character, but to show that Crystal was afraid of her father. Even though no further testimony was elicited from the witness in Barnes to explain what specific acts made the child think her father was mean, the inclusionary nature of the rule allows evidence of other acts, crimes, or wrongs, unless its only purpose is to show the character of the defendant or his propensity to commit the crime charged.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior conduct to prove motive or identity when those issues are disputed and the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than showing propensity.

State v. Parker · filed 1994-01-04Rule 404(b)

As the identity of the perpetrator is at the heart of this case, Ms. Thomas’ testimony as to the motive and identity of the perpetrator is relevant and qualifies under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to show a common scheme or plan when the crimes are related by their place, time, type, method, and participants.

State v. Everette · filed 1993-09-07Rule 404(b)

Where the facts show the crimes were related by facts indicating similar place, time, type of crime, method of perpetration and principals, the evidence is admissible as an exception.

Rule 404(b) bars evidence of a prior act offered to show intent when its only connection to the charged offense is a suggested propensity for violence.

State v. Irby · filed 1994-02-01Rule 404(b)

The fact that defendant may have fired shots at a third person three years before has no tendency to show that defendant did not fear Keith and Kim or to make the existence of his belief as to the apparent necessity to defend himself from an attack more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Therefore, we find the evidence that defendant shot over a truck in 1988 irrelevant and inadmissible.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior crimes to prove identity, motive, opportunity, or intent when the similarities support an inference that the same person committed them.

State v. Moore · filed 1994-03-04Rule 404(b)

Given the similarities between the crime charged and the other crimes presented by the State, we conclude that the evidence of the other offenses was relevant under Rule 404(b) as evidence tending to prove modus operandi, motive, opportunity, intent and identity of defendant as the perpetrator.

Rule 405(a) permits inquiry into specific instances of conduct to rebut reputation or opinion evidence offered by a defendant.

State v. Roten · filed 1994-06-07(a)

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining assignments of error and hold that there was no prejudicial error for the following reasons: assignments of error numbers 2 and 6 — defendant failed to make an offer of proof regarding what the answers to the objectionable questions would have been; assignments of error numbers 3, 9, 10, and 12 — the evidence and testimony which defendant sought to introduce was later introduced; assignments of error numbers 4 and 8 — the trial court’s limiting instruction was sufficient; assignment of error number 5 — the testimony was admissible for purposes of corroborating Ms. Wyatt’s testimony and defendant failed to request a limiting instruction, see State v. Chandler, 324 N.C. 172, 182, 376 S.E.2d 728, 735 (1989); assignment of error number 7 — the testimony was admissible as a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, see N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 803(4); assignment of error number 11 — defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction; assignment of error number 13 — inquiry into specific instances of conduct that would rebut earlier reputation or opinion evidence offered by the defendant is admissible, see State v. Cummings, 332 N.C. 487, 507, 422 S.E.2d 692, 703 (1992) and N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 405(a) (1992); assignment of error number 15 — defendant failed to object to the charge before the jury retired to consider its verdict, see N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(2).

Rule 404(a)(2) permits the prosecution to rebut an accused’s attack on a victim’s character when the accused puts that trait at issue.

State v. Sexton · filed 1994-06-17Rule 404(a)(2)

An exception exists for evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim if offered by the accused “or by the prosecution to rebut the same.” ... Notwithstanding, by attacking the victim’s character for marital fidelity, defendant went beyond what was necessary for his defense and opened the door to the rebuttal evidence.

Rule 404(a)(2) permits an accused to offer evidence of a victim’s character trait only when that trait is pertinent, such as to a claim of self-defense or another justifiable homicide.

State v. Leazer · filed 1994-07-29Rule 404(a)(2)

Neither of the defendants relied on self-defense or any other justifiable homicide, which would have made the victim’s character pertinent.

Rule 403 excludes evidence of a prior alleged offense for which the defendant was acquitted when its probative value depends on the defendant having committed that offense.

State v. Robinson · filed 1994-06-21Rule 403

Since the probative value of Ms. Austin’s testimony to prove intent, common scheme, plan, modus operandi, or absence of mistake directly depended on defendant in fact having committed the crime about which Ms. Austin testified, pursuant to Scott, we are compelled to find that defendant’s “acquittal of the offense in an earlier trial so divests the evidence of probative value that, as a matter of law, it cannot outweigh the tendency of such evidence unfairly to prejudice the defendant.” Id. at 41, 413 S.E.2d 788. Thus, we hold that the admission of Ms. Austin’s testimony was error.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to prove motive, intent, or absence of mistake.

Pinckney v. Van Damme · filed 1994-09-06Rule 404(b)

We hold that the testimony of the witnesses to which defendant objects was admissible under G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b). The evidence regarding defendant’s prior acts in engaging in excessive conduct with other co-employees and his reputation created thereby was probative of defendant’s motive, intent, and the absence of mistake.

Rule 404(b) prohibits using a victim’s prior crimes or misconduct to show a propensity for violence and infer that the victim was the aggressor.

State v. Smith · filed 1994-09-09Rule 404(b)

Defendant was endeavoring to show that since Bowser had a history of criminal convictions and disciplinary infractions, he had a propensity for violence; therefore, he must have been the aggressor in the altercation with defendant. Rule 404(b) expressly prohibits admission of evidence for this purpose.

Rule 404(b) governs the admissibility of other acts evidence but does not require the State to disclose evidence it may offer under the rule.

State v. Payne · filed 1994-09-09Rule 404(b)

This rule addresses the admissibility of evidence; it is not a discovery statute which requires the State to disclose such evidence as it might introduce thereunder.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts that forms a connected chain of events and shows the defendant’s intent or motive.

State v. Rose · filed 1994-12-30Rule 404(b)

We conclude that the chain-of-events evidence here was properly admitted to establish defendant’s intent and motive for the murders at issue, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the evidence more probative than prejudicial.

Rules 404(b) and 403 permit evidence that a defendant possessed a possible murder weapon shortly before a killing when it helps establish the weapon’s presence and is not unfairly prejudicial.

State v. Weathers · filed 1994-12-30Rules 403 and 404(b)

Since the evidence tended to show that the victim was killed by the use of a blunt object, such as a pipe, and since defendant’s confession indicated that he had thrown a pipe away prior to the victim’s death, this evidence was clearly admissible to show that the pipe was in defendant’s bedroom in reasonable proximity to the time of the victim’s death. ... We also reject defendant’s contention that Ms. Hensley’s testimony was more prejudicial than probative under the balancing test of Rule 403. ... We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Hensley’s testimony.

Rule 404(a)(1) bars the State from introducing evidence of a defendant’s bad character before the defendant puts character in issue.

State v. Taylor · filed 1995-02-07Rule 404(a)(1)

Here, as in Morgan, the State introduced evidence of defendant’s reputation as a drug dealer before defendant had put on any evidence. Since defendant did not put his character in issue, the trial court erred in admitting this testimony.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior alcohol use to show knowledge of alcohol’s effects when that knowledge bears on contributory negligence.

McFarland v. Cromer · filed 1995-02-07Rule 404(b)

Because we have already ruled that this evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show Carr’s knowledge of the effects of alcohol as it related to the issue of contributory negligence, it was properly admitted.

Evidence that a homicide victim was unarmed and uninvolved in altercations was admissible to show premeditation and deliberation rather than the victim’s peaceful character.

State v. Alford · filed 1995-02-10Rule 404(a)(2)

The other challenged evidence, that the victim was not in any altercations at the Soul Train Lounge the night of the murder and that neither the victim nor any of his friends were armed that night, was relevant and properly admitted. This evidence was not introduced as evidence of the peaceful nature of the victim, but was introduced to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation on the part of defendant.

Rule 404(a)(1) permits a defendant to offer pertinent character evidence to rebut an implication of guilt raised by the State.

State v. Powell · filed 1995-07-28Rule 404(a)(1)

Evidence of defendant’s respect for his mother was admissible under Rule 404(a)(1) to rebut this implication. Therefore, the trial court erred by excluding the testimony.

Rule 404(a)(2) allows evidence of a victim’s character only when the trait is pertinent; a victim’s violent character is not pertinent when the defense is accident.

State v. Goodson · filed 1995-09-08Rule 404(a)(2)

We do not believe this rule changes the law. We required before the rule was adopted that a character trait must be pertinent to be admissible. The rule does not define “pertinent,” and we believe it left intact our rule which holds that the deceased’s character is not pertinent in this case. It was not error to exclude this testimony.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show a defendant’s state of mind and explain the events leading to an offense.

State v. Price · filed 1995-03-21Rule 404(b)

Although evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person to show that he acted in conformity therewith, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1994). In this case, the challenged evidence was part of the “chain of events” leading up to the arrival of the deputies and the ensuing confrontation, see State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542, 547-48, 391 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1990) (citations omitted), and was admissible to show defendant’s state of mind immediately prior to the deputies being called to the scene.

Section 8C-1 permits evidence of other acts to prove motive under Rule 404(b) when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

State v. Lyons · filed 1995-07-28

We conclude it was not error for the trial court to allow evidence that defendant sold drugs as proof of motive pursuant to Rule 404(b). ... In light of the trial court’s careful and thorough limiting instruction, we conclude that the probative value of Harris’ testimony to show motive was not substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show motive, intent, or the circumstances of the charged crime rather than criminal propensity.

State v. Thibodeaux · filed 1995-07-28Rule 404(b)

Here, Ms. Van’s testimony reflected defendant’s state of mind immediately prior to the murder. The testimony was not offered to show defendant’s propensity for criminal conduct, but to demonstrate his motive and intent to commit the crimes charged. In addition, evidence of other crimes committed by a defendant is admissible under Rule 404(b) if “it establishes the chain of circumstances or context of the charged crime.”

Rule 404(b) bars evidence of a person’s prior act offered to show that the person acted the same way in the crime at issue, even if the evidence has some relevance.

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

If, as the defendant contends, there is some relevancy to this testimony, it is inadmissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior robbery to prove intent when the crimes are sufficiently similar.

State v. Davis · filed 1995-04-07Rule 404(b)

The State contends, and we agree, that evidence of the McDonald’s robbery committed one week prior to the attempted robbery in this case was sufficiently similar to show intent.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes to establish the context of a charged crime when its probative value extends beyond showing propensity.

State v. White · filed 1995-06-02Rule 404(b)

Evidence of other crimes committed by a defendant may be admissible under Rule 404(b) if it establishes the chain of circumstances or context of the charged crime. ... This evidence was not merely probative of defendant’s propensity to commit murder and was properly admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 405(b) allows evidence of a victim’s specific violent acts in a self-defense case when the defendant knew of those acts and they bear on her reasonable apprehension of harm.

State v. Brown · filed 1995-09-19Rule 405(b)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 405(b) (1992) provides that specific instances of conduct may be presented as proof of character in cases where a person’s character is an essential element of a charge or defense. ... Thus, the victim’s conduct in his relationship with Russell becomes relevant only if defendant knew about it at the time of the shooting.

Section 8C-1’s Rules 404(b) and 608(b) do not permit evidence of a plaintiff’s prior drug use to portray a personality type or challenge credibility.

Johnson v. Amethyst Corp. · filed 1995-11-07Rules 404(b) and 608(b)

This reason is not one of the stated purposes allowing such evidence ... under Rule 404(b). In addition, the evidence of prior drug use is irrelevant to plaintiffs credibility under 608(b). We, therefore, find that the evidence of prior drug use was erroneously allowed into evidence by the trial court.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it is relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character, including identity, plan, or absence of mistake.

State v. Howell · filed 1996-05-10Rule 404(b)

We therefore conclude that Farabee’s testimony was relevant to a fact or issue other than defendant’s character and was properly admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) does not require the State to provide a witness’s written statement before trial.

State v. Ocasio · filed 1996-10-11Rule 404(b)

Nothing in the discovery statute or Rule 404(b) obligated the State to provide defendant with Watkins’ written statement prior to trial.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar sexual misconduct to show a common plan when the acts are sufficiently similar and their timing does not make them more prejudicial than probative.

State v. Frazier · filed 1996-10-11Rule 404(b)

We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that the prior acts were not too remote to be considered as evidence of defendant's common plan or scheme to sexually abuse female family members, including the victims here.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior robbery to show a common plan when the crimes share relevant similarities.

State v. Wilson · filed 1996-12-06Rule 404(b)

The court then concluded that the evidence was admissible to show a common plan or design and gave the jury a limiting instruction on the purpose for which the evidence could be considered. We find no error in this ruling by the trial court.

Rule 404(a)(2) does not permit evidence of a victim’s sexual orientation to support a claim of self-defense against a threatened sexual assault.

State v. Laws · filed 1997-03-07Rule 404(a)(2)

Following these principles, it is clear that the evidence offered by the defendant showing that the victim had a reputation for being a homosexual is not a pertinent character trait within the meaning of Rule 404(a)(2).

Rules 405 and 608 do not bar officers from explaining why an investigation eliminated a suspect when their testimony does not address his general character for truthfulness.

State v. Richardson · filed 1997-07-24Rule 405(a)

We conclude that, in the instant case, the officers were not giving character testimony, but rather were explaining their investigation following defendant’s implication of Hedgepeth. Reams was not commenting on Hedgepeth’s general credibility; he merely told the jury that he believed Hedgepeth had told the truth during the investigation.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other conduct for a purpose other than showing that a person acted in conformity with that conduct; evidence offered to show a common mode of operation must involve sufficiently similar acts.

State v. Dickens · filed 1997-05-09Rule 404(b)

Rule 404(b) permits the use of extrinsic conduct evidence so long as the evidence is relevant for some purpose other than to show that the witness acted in conformity with the prior misconduct. If the evidence is introduced to show the same mode of operation, the conduct must be sufficiently similar to support a reasonable inference that the same person committed both the earlier and the later acts.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show motive, intent, or absence of mistake when its relevance extends beyond propensity.

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

Defendant’s relatively recent treatment of Roger Anderson is thus relevant to establish defendant’s motive and intent in shaking Tabitha and to show absence of mistake on defendant’s part. ... We hold that Thompson’s testimony was relevant under Rule 404(b) for these purposes.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to prove intent or plan, but not to prove conduct based on character.

State v. Barfield · filed 1997-09-16Rule 404(b)

Rule 404(b) states that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character conformity, but may be admissible for other purposes. ... In this case, the testimony of the two witnesses was used to show the intent or plan of defendant. Therefore, this testimony is admissible for such purpose.

Rule 404(b) requires a defendant offering evidence of a victim’s prior violent act to show that he knew of the act and that his knowledge was related to the killing.

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

Where, as in this case, a defendant seeks under Rule 404(b) to use evidence of a prior violent act by the victim to prove the defendant’s state of mind at the time he killed the victim, the defendant must show that he was aware of the prior act and that his awareness somehow was related to the killing.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a property owner's conduct to prove motive or intent in making improvements before condemnation.

Department of Transportation v. Coleman · filed 1997-09-02Rule 404(b)

Evidence that the Colemans engaged in some conduct for the sole purpose of increasing their damages in this condemnation proceeding is relevant and admissible under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1996) to prove the “motive” or intent of the owners in making the improvements to their property.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime when it is so intertwined with the charged crime that the circumstances of the charged crime cannot be established without it.

State v. Sidden · filed 1997-10-03Rule 404(b)

Evidence of the murder of the father was so intertwined with evidence of the murder of the boys that in order to show the circumstances of the crime, it was admissible. It was not barred by N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b).

Rules 404(b) and 403 permit relevant testimony about similar misconduct when it is properly admissible.

State v. Jacobs · filed 1998-02-17Rules 404(b) and 403

Thomas’ testimony was relevant and properly admissible under G.S. § 8C-1, Rules 404(b) and 403.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act to prove identity when unusual similarities link the acts, and Rule 403 leaves exclusion for unfair prejudice to the trial court’s discretion.

State v. Lemons · filed 1998-07-09Rule 404(b), Rule 403

In order for evidence of defendant’s prior crimes or bad acts to be admissible under Rule 404(b) to show identity of the perpetrator in the crime charged, there must be “ ‘some unusual facts present in both crimes or particularly similar acts which would indicate that the same person committed both crimes.’ ” ... Here, because the evidence was relevant to show identity, it was properly admitted.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s prejudices when it shows motive or intent rather than merely a propensity to commit the charged crime.

State v. Burmeister · filed 1998-10-20Rule 404(b)

In the instant case, the evidence of defendant’s prejudices was relevant to show defendant’s motive and intent when he killed the two black victims. The evidence showed that defendant was advancing his skinhead beliefs. Thus, this evidence was admissible to show motive and intent, and not merely to show defendant’s propensity to commit murder.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to show identity, plan, or absence of accident when those acts are relevant to the charged offense.

State v. Anderson · filed 1999-04-09Rule 404(b)

The State offered evidence that defendant had previously punished her children through her use of a belt and biting, which tended to establish, first, the identity of the person who committed this crime; second, a plan; and finally, absence of accident. All of these are permissible purposes for which evidence may be offered under Rule 404(b) and are relevant in determining whether defendant committed felonious child abuse and first-degree murder by herself or acting together with someone else.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts offered for a proper purpose when the acts are sufficiently similar to and close in time to the charged offense.

State v. Campbell · filed 1999-06-15Rule 404(b)

When prior incidents are offered for a proper purpose, the ultimate test of admissibility is whether they are sufficiently similar in nature and close in time to the instant charges.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of drug dealing to show motive for murder when the killing arose from a dispute over drug sale proceeds.

State v. Lundy · filed 1999-09-21Rule 404(b)

The argument resulting in the victim’s death occurred when defendants Lundy and Evans confronted the victim about the issue of his fee for selling the drugs, and given that the murder was inextricably tied to the drug activities of both defendants, we hold that evidence of the same was relevant to establish motive for the killing.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of another act when it serves only to show a defendant’s propensity to commit the charged offense.

State v. White · filed 1999-10-19Rule 404(b)

The evidence relating to Dominique was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b), and its admission requires that defendant be granted a new trial.

Rule 404(b) permits relevant evidence of other acts offered for a purpose other than proving that a person acted in conformity with a character trait.

State v. Perez · filed 1999-11-16Rule 404(b)

While G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of other acts to prove character, such as a propensity for violence, in order to show that a person acted in conformity therewith, the rule is generally one of inclusion of relevant evidence of such acts if offered for other purposes. ... Here, the statements in defendant’s letter were clearly relevant as an admission with respect to Murphy’s death and also to show defendant’s deliberate intent to kill.

Rule 404(b) permits relevant evidence of other crimes to show a defendant’s motive, intent, or plan.

State v. Hall · filed 1999-08-03Rule 404(b)

The trial court sub judice properly allowed evidence under Rule 404(b) either to corroborate the accounts of other witnesses or for the purpose of showing defendant’s motive, intent or plan to commit the instant crime.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to establish identity when similarities between the crimes make it likely that the same person committed both.

State v. Moses · filed 1999-08-20Rule 404(b)

However, as previously noted, the modus operandi of the two murders was similar enough to make it likely that the same person committed the two murders. ... These numerous similarities supported the trial court’s 404(b) ruling.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime when it is relevant to motive, intent, plan, or modus operandi rather than propensity.

State v. Cheek · filed 1999-11-05Rule 404(b)

Because this evidence is relevant to facts other than defendant’s propensity to commit the crime, this assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of another crime when its only relevance is to show a defendant’s propensity to commit the charged crime.

State v. Willis · filed 2000-03-07Rule 404(b)

The only relevance of the evidence with respect to the 21 October 1997 Guilford County robbery was to show the character of defendant to commit common law robbery, a purpose forbidden by Rule 404(b). The admission of the evidence was error.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar sexual abuse to show a common plan under a less demanding standard than the single scheme or plan required for joinder.

State v. Owens · filed 1999-11-02Rule 404(b)

Such a Rule 404(b) “plan” may be established by a lower threshold of proof than that needed to establish the “series of acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan,” which must be shown for joinder of offenses for trial under section 15A-926(a). The very terms used in section 15A-926(a) requiring a “single scheme or plan,” are more exacting than the term “plan” used in Rule 404(b). We are therefore satisfied that a “plan” (Rule 404(b)) and a “single plan” (15A-926(a)) are not equivalent.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show motive or plan when it is not used solely to prove bad character.

State v. Smith · filed 2000-02-04Rule 404(b)

Contrary to defendant’s assertions, this evidence was not admitted to show his bad character. Instead, it was properly used to show his motive for the murder and attempted murders, and to show the particular circumstances leading up to them.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it helps explain the chain of events surrounding a crime rather than proving the defendant's bad character, subject to Rule 403's prejudice balancing.

State v. Riley · filed 2000-04-18Rule 404(b)

Therefore, the questioned evidence was not offered to establish defendant's bad character. Instead, it was presented as part of the "chain of events" culminating in the shooting and subsequent investigation and was therefore admissible. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it is relevant to intent, knowledge, or plan rather than propensity.

State v. Crockett · filed 2000-05-16Rule 404(b)

Even if the evidence may tend to show other crimes, or bad acts committed by the defendant, the evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) as long as it “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.” ... Here, the evidence is relevant to show defendant’s intent, knowledge and plan.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of subsequent offenses to show intent or motive when relevant to the charged offense.

State v. Hutchinson · filed 2000-07-18Rule 404(b)

Second, the plain language of Rule 404(b) makes no distinction between subsequent and prior acts of the defendant.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to prove motive.

State v. Golphin · filed 2000-08-25Rule 404(b)

Pursuant to Rule 404(b), the testimony was admissible to prove Kevin’s motive for not wanting to return to Richmond by bus.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior violence against former spouses to establish identity when the violence followed deteriorating marriages and the current victim planned to separate.

State v. Aldridge · filed 2000-08-29Rule 404(b)

The evidence from defendant's two former wives tended to show that as the marriages deteriorated, defendant responded violently. There was evidence that the victim planned to separate from the defendant about the time of the murder. The trial court properly concluded the testimonies of Carolyn Aldridge and Elaine Coffey were relevant in establishing the identity of the perpetrator of the murder. Defendant has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence, and this assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show the accused’s absence of mistake, but not to show that the State was correct to prosecute the accused.

State v. Fluker · filed 2000-08-29Rule 404(b)

Thus, the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior detainment at Hecht’s to show the absence of mistake by the State pursuant to Rule 404(b), as opposed to any absence of mistake that defendant might claim she made.

Rule 404(b) allows evidence of other acts when it is relevant to a purpose other than showing the defendant’s character or propensity to commit the charged offense.

State v. Parker · filed 2000-10-03Rule 404(b)

We have reviewed the testimony of each witness, and in each instance, we conclude their statements were properly admitted under Rule 404(b) for purposes other than showing defendant’s character and propensity to commit murder.

Rule 405(a) permits cross-examination of character witnesses about relevant specific acts after a defendant offers evidence of a pertinent character trait.

State v. Roseboro · filed 2000-05-05Rule 405(a)

Defendant placed his character at issue by having members of his family testify about his reputation for nonviolence or peacefulness, “a pertinent trait of his character.” In accordance with Rule 405(a), the prosecutor then cross-examined these witnesses about whether they knew of or had heard any accusations that defendant had hit or been violent toward his wife. ... We conclude that the prosecutor’s questions were not improper cross-examination and that allowing the witness to answer was not error, much less plain error.

Rule 705 permits cross-examination about facts an expert considered in forming an opinion, including uncharged conduct.

State v. Wallace · filed 2000-05-05Rule 705

Under the broad scope of Rule 705, cross-examination relating to the two murders was permissible to probe the basis for the experts’ opinions.

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of dissimilar conduct offered to show a plan or scheme to commit the charged offense.

State v. DOISEY. · filed 2000-07-05Rule 404(b)

The evidence regarding the videotapes, therefore, did not tend to show Defendant’s plan or scheme to sexually assault D.H. ... It was, therefore, error under Rule 404(b) to admit this evidence.

Rule 404(a) does not exclude expert testimony about whether injuries fit a reported history when the testimony does not discuss the defendant’s character.

State v. Moss · filed 2000-07-18Rule 404(a)

However, Dr. Munson did not discuss the character of defendant, and thus Rule 404(a) has no application.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence used to establish identity when it does not show other crimes, wrongs, or acts by the defendant or suggest a propensity to commit the charged offense.

State v. Hanton · filed 2000-12-05Rule 404(b)

However, the State did not introduce evidence of other “crimes, wrongs, or acts” committed by defendant. His photograph was used to prove identity, which is permissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of other acts to show a defendant’s knowledge when the evidence does not connect the defendant to those acts.

State v. Moctezuma · filed 2000-12-19Rule 404(b)

The State argues that the evidence seized at the trailer is evidence of other wrongs that tends to show defendant’s knowledge of the cocaine in the van. We disagree. Rule 404(b) speaks of “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts.” Here, there are no crimes, wrongs or acts with which defendant is connected.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior wrongdoing when it supports an inference about the defendant's motive for the charged crime.

State v. Barnett · filed 2000-12-29Rule 404(b)

Here the evidence elicited on cross-examination about defendant's drug use and his prior conviction was admissible under Rule 404(b) because it permits the inference that defendant committed this robbery and murder to obtain money he needed to support his drug habit.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s prior assault on the victim when it tends to show intent or lack of accident.

State v. Washington · filed 2000-12-29Rule 404(b)

In the case at bar, evidence of defendant's prior assault on the victim tended to establish not only malice, intent, premeditation and deliberation, all elements of first-degree murder, but more importantly, it tended to establish ill-will against the victim and lack of accident. Because defendant contended that he shot Reels by mistake, this evidence was relevant to an issue other than defendant's character.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior assaults when their similarities support a reasonable inference that the defendant committed the acts and the evidence serves a purpose other than showing propensity.

State v. Berry · filed 2001-05-01Rule 404(b)

Based on these findings, the trial court properly found there were sufficient similarities to support a reasonable inference that the defendant committed all three assaults, and thus making the prior acts admissible under Rule 404(b).

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

State v. Bidgood · filed 2001-06-19Rule 404(b)

Because the rape of Ms. McClure and the alleged rape of Ms. Tate were sufficiently similar and occurred less than ten months apart, we hold Ms. Tate’s testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar, temporally proximate sexual acts to show a plan or scheme.

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

Because defendant’s alleged contact with Ms. Gardner and the sexual offenses committed against the victims in this case were sufficiently similar, and because the acts involving Ms. Gardner occurred in 1985, which is during the period of the alleged sexual crimes, we hold Ms. Gardner’s testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of sufficiently similar prior sexual acts to show a common plan or scheme, and a ten-year gap does not necessarily make those acts too remote.

State v. Williamson · filed 2001-10-02Rule 404(b)

We conclude the gap in time is not too remote to warrant admission of the evidence under Rule 404(b), given our Supreme Court’s liberal treatment of admitting prior evidence of similar sexual offenses, and its express holding that a ten-year gap between incidents is not sufficiently remote in time to preclude admission under 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of conduct underlying dismissed charges when it serves a proper purpose, is relevant, and passes Rule 403 balancing.

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

Adjudication of guilt is not a prerequisite for admittance of other crimes under this rule. ... After a careful review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of heroin charges in Durham County even though they had been dismissed.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to show a common scheme or plan when the acts are sufficiently similar and not too remote, subject to Rule 403’s prejudice balancing.

State v. Patterson · filed 2002-03-19Rule 404(b)

We hold that the prior bad acts, occurring in Delaware between ten and fifteen years before defendant’s trial, were not too remote to be considered as relevant evidence of defendant’s common scheme or plan to meet young girls at a skating rink, provide them drugs and alcohol, and photograph them in varying stages of undress for the purposes of sexual gratification.