N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 405(a) permits cross-examination of a defendant’s character witnesses about relevant specific conduct without a fixed time limit or rule against remote conduct.

State v. Rhue · filed 2002-05-21Rule 405(a)

Moreover, unlike evidence of prior bad acts being offered under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1999), Rule 405(a) does not contain any time limit or rule regarding remoteness, and our Supreme Court has explicitly refused to impose one.

Rule 404(a) generally bars character evidence offered to show that a person acted in conformity with a trait, unless the defendant first puts a pertinent trait at issue.

State v. Stafford · filed 2002-06-04Rule 404(a)

In the case subjudice, the State attempted to offer evidence of defendant’s temper before he “opened the door” and put his character at issue. Thus, the State’s question was an attempt to elicit inadmissible evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual abuse to show a common plan when the acts are sufficiently similar.

State v. Starner · filed 2002-08-06Rule 404(b)

Here, M’s testimony of defendant’s sexual assaults against her shows a “common plan or scheme,” by defendant of abusing young female family members. ... We therefore find the evidence admissible under Rule 404.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior abuse of the same victim when it is sufficiently close in time and similar to show a pattern of physical intimidation and the victim’s state of mind.

State v. Strickland · filed 2002-11-05Rule 404(b)

The evidence of defendant’s prior abuse of victim was relevant to prove his pattern of physical intimidation of victim. Also, the evidence has bearing on victim’s state of mind at the time of the attack in June 1998.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime when it shows motive, intent, or knowledge rather than only a propensity to commit the charged crime.

State v. Berry · filed 2002-12-20Rule 404(b)

After determining that Rule 403 did not require exclusion of the evidence, the court then considered whether the evidence was being offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404, to establish defendant’s intent, motive, and knowledge. Defendant’s comments to others that he killed Fetter to prevent her from talking about the Maves murder readily fits all three of these permissible purposes.

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

State v. Yancey · filed 2002-12-31Rule 404(a)(1)

Until a defendant offers such evidence of his character, the State may not introduce evidence of his bad character. ... As the State offered this testimony before defendant put forth any evidence, the trial court erred in admitting this statement.

Rule 404 bars the State from introducing evidence of an accused’s bad character before the accused puts character in issue.

State v. Tucker · filed 2003-02-04Rule 404

Such does not incidentally bear upon his character, and therefore it was impermissible character evidence, as this testimony came out in the State’s case-in-chief before defendant had put his character in issue.

Rule 404(b) does not permit the bare fact of a defendant’s prior convictions as substantive evidence without underlying facts showing similarities to the charged offense.

State v. Hairston · filed 2003-02-18Rule 404(b)

Under the holding in Wilkerson, the trial court erred in admitting this testimony for substantive purposes under Rule 404(b) without evidence of the underlying facts to show similarities between the prior convictions and present offense charged.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to prove intent when the jury is instructed to consider it only for that purpose.

State v. Morgan · filed 2003-03-18Rule 404(b)

The trial court did not err in admitting this evidence to show defendant’s intent to kill Morgan. The trial court properly limited the purposes in its instruction by requiring the jury to consider the evidence only to show intent and only as against Morgan.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of a prior drug offense when its only relevance is to show a defendant’s propensity to commit drug offenses.

State v. Williams · filed 2003-03-18Rule 404(b)

The only relevance of the testimony from Lamontaine was to illustrate defendant’s predisposition toward drag violations, which is a purpose forbidden by Rule 404(b).

Rule 405(a) permits cross-examination of a defendant’s character witness about a relevant prior conviction after the defendant offers evidence of good character.

State v. Hargett · filed 2003-04-01Rule 405(a)

The State cross-examined Hasse by inquiring into a specific instance of defendant’s conduct, defendant’s prior conviction of a crime similar to that charged here. This cross-examination is explicitly permitted by the language of Rule 405(a).

Rule 404(b) does not require the State to disclose evidence of other acts it intends to use at trial.

State v. Walters · filed 2003-05-02Rule 404(b)

First, there is no requirement that the State must provide a defendant with Rule 404(b) evidence that it intends to use at trial.

Rules 404(b) and 403 allow evidence of other drug transactions for a proper purpose when the transactions are sufficiently similar and close in time for their probative value to outweigh prejudice.

State v. McCracken · filed 2003-05-06Rule 404(b); Rule 403

The transcript reflects that evidence of additional drug transactions between 7 February and 14 March 2001 was offered and admitted for the purpose of establishing knowledge, plan, scheme, or design, opportunity, and absence of mistake or entrapment, proper purposes under Rule 404(b). ... In this case, the other drug transactions involved the sale of oxy-codone at prearranged locations similar to the location at which defendant had met Heath on March 5. These other transactions also occurred within a few weeks before and after that date. As such, they were sufficiently similar and not too remote in time, ... so as to make the evidence more probative than prejudicial. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act to rebut a defendant’s claim that he harmed a law enforcement officer by mistake.

State v. Mays · filed 2003-07-01Rule 404(b)

We believe the State’s questions were proper under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2001).

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

State v. Dunston · filed 2003-12-02Rule 404(b)

We conclude this evidence was not relevant for any purpose other than to prove defendant’s propensity to engage in anal sex, and thus, the trial court erred in admitting this evidence.

Rule 404 permits an accused to offer pertinent character traits, but general good reputation does not entitle the accused to a jury instruction.

State v. Fowler · filed 2003-08-05Rule 404

We conclude that under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on his general “good reputation” in the community, and that the trial court did not err by refusing this request.

Rule 404(b) permits testimony that a vehicle was reported stolen when it explains why the defendant appeared in a photographic lineup and does not suggest he stole it or had a propensity to commit the charged crime.

State v. McCree · filed 2003-08-19Rule 404(b)

On these facts, we conclude that Rule 404(b) does not require exclusion of Officer Sell’s testimony that the vehicle defendant was driving when he was stopped had been “reported stolen.”

Rule 404(a)(2) permits the State to introduce evidence of a victim’s character to rebut defense evidence putting the victim’s character or role as first aggressor at issue.

State v. Allen · filed 2004-02-17Rule 404(a)(2)

In the case before us, at the time of the testimony of Moretz and Lambert, defendant had not challenged the character of Esmeralda or Feliciano, nor had he presented evidence that either was the aggressor. Therefore, the admission of testimony as to character was in error.

Rules 404(a)(1), 404(b), and 405(b) do not permit evidence of an accused's prior violence to rebut a self-defense claim when the accused has not offered character evidence, the prior acts lack a qualifying purpose, and character is not an essential element of the defense.

State v. Dennison · filed 2004-04-06Rule 404(a)(1), Rule 404(b), Rule 405(b)

Because defendant's testimony in this regard was elicited by the State, we hold that it was not character evidence "offered by an accused" such that it would "open the door" under Rule 404(a)(1) for the State to introduce its own character evidence in rebuttal. ... We do not discern sufficient similarities in the circumstances surrounding Mr. Spaul's death and those surrounding defendant's violent acts allegedly directed towards Tellado to render evidence regarding the latter admissible for any purpose sanctioned by Rule 404(b). ... We therefore conclude that since raising a self-defense claim does not interject a defendant's character into the proceedings, and a defendant's character is not an essential element of a self-defense claim, admission of the challenged evidence in the instant case was not justified under Rule 405(b).

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of a defendant’s pornography possession when it serves only to suggest a propensity to commit the charged offense.

State v. Bush · filed 2004-05-18Rule 404(b)

Therefore, any evidence of the purchase or ownership of pornographic tapes is inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and Smith, and would constitute prejudice at any new trial.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to show motive or absence of accident when the evidence serves a proper purpose.

State v. Lanier · filed 2004-07-20Rule 404(b)

Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence for proper purposes under Rule 404(b), we need not address defendant’s arguments regarding the remaining purposes for which the trial court introduced this evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to show intent, knowledge, or motive.

State v. Valladares · filed 2004-08-03Rule 404(b)

Under these circumstances, it was proper to allow evidence of the prior drug use and the cocaine sale on the previous day to show defendant’s intent, knowledge, and motive.

Rule 404(b)'s temporal proximity requirement permits a prior impaired-driving conviction from 13 years before the charged offense to be admitted as evidence of malice.

State v. Blackwell · filed 2004-09-07Rule 404(b)

As the 1984 Person County conviction occurred only 13 years before the crime at issue in this case, the trial court did not erroneously admit said conviction.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual misconduct to prove motive, intent, and knowledge.

State v. Paul · filed 2004-09-07Rule 404(b)

Because the testimony was admitted to prove motive, intent and knowledge under Rule 404(b), we conclude that its admission was proper.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other sexual misconduct to show a common plan or intent when the acts are sufficiently similar to the charged conduct.

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

As in Curry, we conclude thatthe trial court did not err in ruling that the evidence involving defendant's acts against D.C., J.R., and R.S. was sufficiently similar to the charged conduct to permit its admission.

Rule 404(b) bars evidence of other acts offered to show propensity, but a party can open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence by raising the subject first.

State v. Grantham · filed 2005-01-18Rule 404(b)

Under Rule 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to show that a person has a propensity to commit a wrong or act. ... We believe that, with this testimony, defendant opened the door to questions about the information on Officer Moore's arrest sheets, which included reference to defendant's failure to appear on the 2001 DWI.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior drug offense to show motive for a later drug-related murder when it serves a purpose beyond showing criminal propensity.

State v. Davis · filed 2005-02-01Rule 404(b)

Credibility of the evidence notwithstanding, we believe the State’s evidence sufficiently showed defendant’s prior arrest for drug possession was admissible under the theory that it went to the motive for the later drug-related murder.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show motive when the evidence is relevant for a purpose beyond showing propensity.

State v. Harvin · filed 2005-02-15Rule 404(b)

In the instant case, evidence that defendant was a drug dealer was admissible and relevant to show his motive for firing at the fleeing car.

The Rules of Evidence permit questions about relevant prior violent acts when a defendant has introduced evidence of his nonviolent character.

State v. Ammons · filed 2005-01-04Rule 405(a)

Unlike in Morgan and Mills, where only the issue of self-defense but not the defendant’s character were raised, but similar to Syriani, where the defendant testified to his character for non-violence, such inquiries in the instant case into prior violent behavior during cross-examination were relevant as to defendant’s credibility once defendant placed his character for nonviolence at issue. Therefore, the trial court did not err in permitting such inquiries.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts that shows a common plan or design rather than merely a propensity to commit the charged crime.

State v. Petro · filed 2005-01-04Rule 404(b)

We think these similarities sufficiently indicate a common plan or design on the part of defendant, and Woods’ testimony served a purpose other than to show mere propensity to commit the crime charged.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior sexual assaults to show opportunity, a common scheme, or identity when the incidents are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Thaggard · filed 2005-02-01Rule 404(b)

Based on the above similarities and the temporal proximity, we conclude the admission of C.W. and N.W.’s testimony was for proper purposes: to show opportunity, a common scheme or modus operandi, and the assailant’s identity.

Rule 404(a)(1) permits the prosecution to rebut an accused's evidence of a pertinent good character trait with contrary character evidence.

State v. Gurganious · filed 2005-01-04Rule 404(a)(1)

Defendant opened the door to the prosecution's character evidence by offering evidence of his good character with respect to young women and girls. As in Fultz, the State was then entitled to offer evidence to rebut defendant's character trait evidence under Rule 404(a).

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

State v. Alvarez · filed 2005-02-15Rule 404(b)

Our review of the record and transcript indicate the trial court did not err in permitting the admission of the three robberies. Each was sufficiently similar in how they were committed and occurred within weeks of one another.

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of a prior offense to establish identity when that offense is insufficiently similar to the charged crime.

State v. McMillian · filed 2005-03-15Rule 404(b)

Here the testimony by Brinkley that he arrested defendant for DWI is not sufficiently similar to the attempted armed robbery for it to be offered for any permissible purpose. Thus, the trial court erred when it overruled the defendant’s objections to the testimony.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior bad acts when it shows a defendant’s motive or intent in committing the charged crime.

State v. Hightower · filed 2005-03-01Rule 404(b)

Admission of this evidence was not error under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) requires redacting prior offenses from license suspension letters offered to prove notice when no basis supports admitting the offenses themselves.

State v. Scott · filed 2005-01-04Rule 404(b)

However, the trial court’s admission of multiple letters of suspension, with no redaction of the specific offenses for which the license was revoked, including multiple counts of driving while impaired, is a violation of Rule 404(b), as no basis in this case has been shown for admission of the bare facts of the specific offenses.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it is relevant to a defendant’s motive or intent.

State v. Brewington · filed 2005-05-17Rule 404(b)

In this case, the outstanding warrant for defendant’s arrest due to a probation violation was admissible under Rule 404(b) because it provided a possible explanation or motive for defendant’s actions on 10 September 2001.

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

State v. Harrington · filed 2005-06-21Rule 404(b)

Since this evidence of prior acts by Harrington was relevant to an issue other than his propensity to commit the crime, the trial court did not err in determining that this evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Rule 404(b) bars prior acts offered only to show propensity; a 23-year gap undermined the claimed common plan, and possession of pornography unrelated to the charges was inadmissible character evidence.

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

Like in Jones, the extreme time lapse between the alleged instances of abuse merits against finding that defendant was engaged in an ongoing plan or scheme of sexual abuse. Because the evidence was admitted solely for the purpose of showing a "scheme, plan, system or design," and because of the lapse of twenty-three years, a significant period of time, the trial court erred in admitting this evidence.

Rule 405 requires a defendant to prove a pertinent character trait through reputation or opinion testimony when the trait is not an essential element of the charge or defense.

State v. Murphy · filed 2005-08-16Rule 405(a)-(b)

In the instant case, although defendant’s allegedly peaceable character was pertinent to the charge of first-degree murder, neither defendant’s character nor a trait of his character were essential elements of the charge or defendant’s defense. Thus, elicitation of evidence regarding defendant’s character during direct testimony must have been accomplished via opinion or reputation testimony rather than specific instance testimony. Therefore, in light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err by limiting defendant’s witnesses to testimony regarding defendant’s reputation for peacefulness.

Rule 404(a) bars reputation evidence offered to show that third parties acted in conformity with their reputation when no exception applies.

State v. McBride · filed 2005-09-06Rule 404(a)

We agree with defendant that admitting the reputation evidence of Ms. Chavis and Mr. McBride violated Rule 404(a) and was error. In the instant case, the only logical relevance of admitting their reputation for drug use and drug dealing respectively, was to show that on the day in question, they were acting in conformity with their reputation in the company of defendant.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s probation status when it helps prove knowledge and opportunity to commit the charged crime rather than a propensity to commit it.

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

The State did not ask Officer Stephens any questions regarding the reason for which defendant was on probation; the trial court admitted the evidence in order to show “that the defendant occupied or controlled the premises in question,” giving him the requisite knowledge and opportunity to commit the crime. The evidence was relevant and was properly admitted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(a)(1) allows the prosecution to rebut evidence of a defendant’s pertinent character trait after the defendant introduces it.

State v. Duke · filed 2005-12-16Rule 404(a)(1)

Whenever a defendant “opens the door” to character evidence by introducing evidence of his own pertinent character trait — in this case his peacefulness — the prosecution may rebut that evidence with contrary character evidence.

Rule 404(b) allows evidence of a sufficiently similar prior robbery to show a plan.

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

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of the prior robbery under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence offered to corroborate a victim’s testimony and show a defendant’s plan or preparation, rather than to prove conduct based on character.

State v. Brown · filed 2006-06-20Rule 404(b)

The admission of the photographs into evidence served to corroborate Sarah’s testimony of defendant’s actions and provided evidence of a plan and preparation to engage in sexual activities with her. ... As the photographs were admitted for a permissible purpose other than to show defendant’s character in conformity therewith, we find no error in the trial court’s admission of the evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show a common plan or absence of mistake when the evidence is relevant to those purposes.

State v. King · filed 2006-06-20Rule 404(b)

The State offered this evidence to show “common plan or scheme” and “absence of mistake.” ... This evidence was relevant and admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other wrongs or acts to prove intent.

State v. Nguyen · filed 2006-07-18Rule 404(b)

To prove the disputed issue of defendant’s intent to kill, the State elicited testimony on defendant’s prior misconduct toward his wife. Dr. Schaeffer’s testimony regarding the statements of defendant’s prior bad acts was properly admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a similar prior act without direct proof connecting the defendant to it when substantial evidence of the similarities suggests the same person committed both acts.

State v. Peterson · filed 2006-09-19Rule 404(b)

Thus, although perhaps more persuasive, it is not necessary to the evidence’s admissibility under Rule 404(b) that the State specifically connect defendant to the previous crime or act, so long as substantial evidence of the similarities of the two crimes or acts suggests that the same person committed both acts.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior acts to show a plan or absence of mistake when the evidence is sufficiently similar and not too remote.

State v. Bradley · filed 2006-09-19Rule 404(b)

Given the similarity between the ages of the victims at the time of the acts, their placement with the defendant because of familial or quasi-familial relationships, the defendant’s purported modus operandi in each instance, and the warning he allegedly gave each victim, we conclude the evidence was properly admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s other acts when it is probative of a disputed fact other than bad character.

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

Given the defense’s attempts to suggest that Ms. Perkins may have been the perpetrator or that Jakob died from an accidental fall, evidence concerning the relationship between Defendant and Ms. Perkins was probative for a purpose other than his bad character.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior conduct to explain the context of an event when it is not offered to prove that a person acted in conformity with a character trait.

State v. Beal · filed 2007-01-02Rule 404(b)

This testimony was not offered for the purpose of proving that defendant acted in conformity with a violent disposition, but rather served to provide context for the ensuing fight. As such, its admission does not violate Rule 404’s prohibition on character evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act to show a common plan or scheme when the incidents are sufficiently similar and the evidence is more probative than prejudicial.

State v. Smart · filed 2007-02-06Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, we consider whether the State had a purpose other than showing Defendant's character or showing that Defendant acted in conformity with his prior conduct. If another purpose exists, then the evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b). ... Due to the similarities of Defendant's possession of marijuana, his attempt to dispose of the marijuana while being chased, his escape tactic, and the location of the arrest, we hold that the prior incident described by Officer Dorn's testimony was sufficiently similar to the facts of the present case as to be more probative than prejudicial.

Rule 404(a)(2) permits evidence of a victim's violent character to show that a defendant's fear was reasonable in a self-defense claim.

State v. Everett · filed 2006-06-20Rule 404(a)(2)

Rule 404(a)(2) provides that "evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused" is admissible. ... Rhodes's testimony regarding the victim's violent behavior at the car dealership, which was known by defendant, is relevant and admissible to show whether her "apprehension of death and bodily harm was reasonable." Winfrey, 298 N.C. at 262, 258 S.E.2d at 347.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show motive, opportunity, intent, or knowledge, but not character or conduct in conformity with character.

State v. Calvino · filed 2006-08-15(b)

However, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent and knowledge. ... We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Rule 404(b) does not treat testimony about threats as evidence of a defendant’s prior bad act when the witness does not identify the defendant as responsible and says the defendant did not threaten him.

State v. Johnson · filed 2007-01-02Rule 404(b)

Harris responded ambiguously at first, but then stated “as far as, you know, the arguments that we may have had, as far as coming up to the trial, [defendant] ain’t threatened me. I mean him personally, no, being threatened, not him, you know.” We fail to see how such testimony constitutes evidence of a prior bad act by defendant.

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

State v. Combs · filed 2007-04-03Rule 404(b)

Rule 404(b) evidence is relevant and admissible so long as the incidents are sufficiently similar and not too remote in time. ... The trial court properly admitted Exhibit 3 and 9 with a limiting instruction for the jury to consider this evidence as tending to show a common scheme or plan.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes for purposes other than proving character when the incidents are sufficiently similar and close in time, subject to Rule 403’s limit on unfair prejudice.

State v. Morgan · filed 2007-05-15Rule 404(b)

The evidence of the other robberies is admissible under Rule 404(b) and is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a sufficiently similar prior drug arrest to show knowledge and intent, even when the arrest occurred years earlier.

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

We conclude that the facts surrounding defendant's prior arrest were sufficiently similar to the facts of the case at bar to be admissible for the purpose of showing that: (1) defendant knew he possessed crack cocaine; and (2) that his intent was to sell or deliver the drugs. Furthermore, considering its similarity to the offense for which defendant was tried, and because it was used to show knowledge and intent, we also conclude that the prior arrest was not too remote in time to be admissible.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it shows guilty knowledge or helps explain the circumstances of the charged crime.

State v. Freeman · filed 2007-08-21Rule 404(b)

Such testimony was probative of defendant's guilty knowledge, one of the grounds for admissibility pursuant to Rule 404(b). ... Accordingly, Rule 404(b) did not require exclusion of Officer Miller's testimony concerning the false names and identification card.

Rule 404(b) bars evidence of prior assaults when it serves only to show a defendant’s propensity for violence.

State v. Goodwin · filed 2007-11-06Rule 404(b)

All the jury could possibly draw from the evidence of the 1997 and 2001 incidents, as it was presented was defendant’s propensity for violence. ... We therefore hold that the trial court erred in its admission of evidence of the 1997 and 2001 incidents pursuant to Rule 404(b), and that this error prejudiced defendant.

Evidence of another sexual assault may be admitted under Rule 404(b) to show a plan when the incidents are sufficiently similar, subject to Rule 403’s balance of probative value against unfair prejudice.

State v. Simpson · filed 2007-12-04Rule 404(b); Rule 403

The similarities in the incidents support such an inference; thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the similarities were sufficient to admit Farmer’s testimony. ... In light of the trial court’s instruction to the jury limiting their consideration of the evidence to the purposes of showing motive, intent, and plan, scheme, system, or design, any tendency of the evidence to suggest decision on an improper basis is not excessive and does not outweigh the probative value of the evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to prove motive, intent, preparation, plan, absence of mistake, or knowledge when its relevance outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.

State v. Petrick · filed 2007-11-06Rule 404(b)

This evidence tended to show defendant’s motive, intent, preparation, plan, absence of mistake, and knowledge. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b). The relevancy of this evidence outweighs its danger of unfair prejudice. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403. The trial court properly admitted this evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s later acts when substantial evidence supports a finding that the defendant committed a similar act relevant to identity or a common plan.

State v. MacK · filed 2008-02-05Rule 404(b)

Upon review, we hold the evidence of the February transactions represented substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find defendant had committed a similar act. ... Therefore, defendant’s contention that evidence of the February transactions should not have been admitted under Rule 404(b) is overruled.

Rule 404(a)(1) permits an accused to offer evidence of pertinent character traits, including peacefulness and law-abidingness, to show conduct consistent with those traits.

State v. Ledarius Montreal Banks · filed 2008-08-05Rule 404(a)(1)

However, an exception is provided for an accused, who may present evidence of a pertinent trait of his character in an attempt to prove he acted in accord with this trait. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(a)(1). ... On review, we hold the trial court erred in precluding defendant from introducing evidence regarding his character traits of peacefulness and law-abidingness.

Rule 404(a)(2) does not allow the prosecution to introduce evidence of a victim’s good character solely because the defense forecasts evidence of bad character in its opening statement.

State v. Buie · filed 2009-01-06Rule 404(a)(2)

In light of Faison, we hold that the State should not have been allowed to introduce evidence in its case-in-chief about the female’s good character merely because the Defendant forecast the introduction of evidence of the female’s bad character.

Rule 404(a)(2) does not permit the prosecution to introduce evidence of a victim's character first in a non-homicide case.

State v. Rowe · filed 2009-03-17Rule 404(a)(2)

Here, Defendant did not initiate evidence of Mr. Conner's character for dishonesty or violence. The testimony above was elicited on Investigator Cloutier's direct-examination, during the State's case-in-chief. Moreover, it was not introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of rebutting evidence previously offered by Defendant. Thus, this evidence was inadmissible under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(a)(2).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior drug possession when it is relevant to guilty knowledge rather than merely to show a propensity for unlawful conduct.

State v. Ellison · filed 2011-07-19Rule 404(b)

Having determined that the contested evidence was relevant for one of the purposes expressly authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b), we now turn to the issue of whether the challenged evidence was subject to exclusion under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403, which provides that, even though relevant, “evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior misconduct to show motive when its value extends beyond proving criminal propensity.

State v. Britt · filed 2011-12-06Rule 404(b)

Although seemingly unrelated, when viewed in conjunction with other evidence of the Britts’ financial hardships, defendant’s fraudulent conduct in altering his tax returns supported the State’s theory that defendant had a financial motive to murder his wife which grew over a period of several years. ... The court, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in admitting some 404(b) evidence and excluding other such evidence.

Rule 404(b) does not bar evidence of another act when it explains the motive for the conduct at issue.

St. John v. Brantley · filed 2011-12-20Rule 404(b)

Evidence about Tammy’s assault on Vicky and Plaintiff’s role in the subsequent criminal charges explained Defendants’ motive in harassing Plaintiff, and thus was not barred by Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to corroborate testimony or establish the chain of circumstances of a crime.

State v. Schiro · filed 2012-02-21Rule 404(b)

We believe the trial court properly admitted Mr. Gallant’s testimony for the purposes argued by the State and, additionally, any unfair prejudice was outweighed by the evidence’s probative value.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts relevant to a victim’s state of mind, including fear that explains a delay in reporting an alleged rape.

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

Because the altercation with George and the 9 December name-calling incident were relevant to demonstrate Ms. Toomes’ state of mind, the trial court did not commit plain error under Rule 404(b) in admitting the evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act to prove a defendant’s intent to defraud.

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

Evidence of the Wachovia check was therefore admissible under Rule 404(b) for the proper purpose of proving Defendant's intent to defraud, an essential element of the offenses for which he was charged.

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of another sexual act when it is too dissimilar from the charged offense to serve a proper purpose.

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

In the absence of any authority upholding the admission of evidence with such a lack of similarity, we hold that the composition book entry was not relevant to any proper purpose. It was, therefore, inadmissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime when it is relevant to intent, identity, method, or a common plan.

State v. Matthews · filed 2012-01-17Rule 404(b)

Second, the 404(b) evidence was probative of — at a minimum— intent, identity, modus operandi, and common scheme or plan.

Rule 404(a)(1) permits the State to rebut a defendant’s evidence of peaceful character by questioning the character witness about the defendant’s prior crimes.

State v. Williams · filed 2012-04-17Rule 404(a)(1)

The State’s questions regarding defendant’s prior crimes fall squarely under Rule 404(a)(1), as they were in rebuttal to the defendant’s character evidence as to his peaceful nature.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to prove a common plan, identity, or motive when substantial evidence supports a finding that the defendant committed those acts.

State v. Adams · filed 2012-05-01Rule 404(b)

Based on our conclusion that the State did present substantial evidence tending to support a finding that defendant committed these other acts, we must now determine whether the evidence was offered for a proper 404(b) purpose. Here, the State offered the June and November 2008 acts as 404(b) evidence to show proof of defendant’s common plan or scheme, his identity, and his motive for committing the acts. After our analysis, we conclude that the trial court properly admitted the State’s evidence for these specific purposes, pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404 bars character evidence offered to prove conduct in conformity with character, but testimony offered to explain why officers searched a location is not barred merely because it incidentally reflects on character.

State v. Anderson · filed 2012-08-07Rule 404(a)

With regard to defendant’s first contention, our General Statutes provide that “[e]vidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404 (2011). ... Here, it is clear from the record that the testimony at issue was not admitted to prove conformity. Rather, the record shows that the statement was only admitted for the sole purpose of explaining why officers searched for defendant at a particular location.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show a defendant’s plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident.

State v. Noble · filed 2013-04-16Rule 404(b)

These findings are supported by the record as detailed above, and the findings support the trial court’s conclusion that the testimony was admissible as evidence of a plan, knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident in aiding and abetting possession and consumption of alcohol by persons under 21 years old.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show intent, plan, scheme, or modus operandi rather than a propensity to commit the charged offense.

State v. Hanif · filed 2013-07-02Rule 404(b)

Moreover, we hold that the evidence is probative of defendant’s intent, plan, scheme, and modus operandi and thus, relevant for some purpose other than to show defendant’s propensity for selling his prescription medication.

Rule 404(b) permits a reference to prior arrests when offered to establish the defendant’s age rather than his character.

State v. Barrett · filed 2013-08-06Rule 404(b)

Even presuming that the admission of Det. Huntley’s testimony indicating that the Monroe Police Department had a record of defendant’s date of birth “[f]rom prior arrests” could be considered 404(b) evidence, it was clearly admissible to show a fact other than defendant’s character.

Rule 404(b) permits pornography as evidence of motive or intent when its relevance extends beyond showing a defendant’s propensity to commit a crime.

State v. Rayfield · filed 2014-01-07Rule 404(b)

For these reasons, the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) as relevant to Defendant’s motive or intent.

Gang membership alone does not qualify as a pertinent character trait, and character evidence must be offered through an authorized method of proof.

State v. Horskins · filed 2013-07-02Rule 404(a)(1); Rule 405

We fail to see how membership in a gang meets that definition. Further, defendant did not attempt to introduce this supposed “character evidence” as reputation or opinion testimony or as testimony regarding specific instances of conduct. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(a)(1); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 405 (2011).

An accused may offer opinion testimony about a pertinent character trait; respectful treatment of children is pertinent to charges of sexual offenses against children.

State v. Walston · filed 2013-08-20Rule 404(a)(1)

The trial court’s exclusion of opinion testimony regarding Defendant’s character for respectful treatment of children prevented Defendant from offering evidence of a pertinent character trait.

Rule 404(a) does not exclude a defendant’s statement about prior drug use when it does not suggest that the defendant acted in conformity with that conduct in committing the charged crimes.

State v. Monroe · filed 2013-10-01Rule 404(a)

Defendant cites Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(a). As we are unable to discern how in this context defendant’s admission that he used to “get high” supports the assertion that he acted in conformity therewith in feloniously possessing stolen goods or committing robbery with a dangerous weapon, we overrule this argument and affirm the trial court’s admission of defendant’s statement.

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

State v. Gordon · filed 2013-07-16Rule 404(b)

In this case, the common locations, victims, type of crime, and proximity in time áre sufficiently similar that the 404(b) evidence was properly admitted.

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

State v. May · filed 2013-11-05Rule 404(b)

Because the alleged conduct in the playhouse/shed and the charged conduct were not too remote in time and sufficiently similar, and because this Court takes an approach that is “ ‘markedly liberal in admitting evidence of similar sex offenses by a defendant for the purposes now enumerated in Rule 404(b) [,]’ ” we believe that the testimony of the three witnesses regarding the alleged conduct in the playhouse/shed was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) does not treat the mere fact of recent incarceration as evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts.

State v. Goins · filed 2014-02-18Rule 404(b)

Furthermore, our research reveals no case holding that recent incarceration, in and of itself, amounts to evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Defendant therefore has not shown that the trial court erred on the basis of violation of N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(a)(1) permits the State to examine the circumstances of a defendant’s military discharge when the defendant puts his character at issue by emphasizing his positive military service.

State v. Sargent · filed 2014-03-18(a)(1)

Because defendant placed his character at issue by testifying at length about his positive military service record and acknowledging that he received a general discharge from the United States Army, the State was entitled to examine the circumstances that led to defendant’s discharge.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar acts close in time to prove intent when intent is an element of the charged offense.

State v. Parker · filed 2014-04-15Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, where, as here, the findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusions of law, evidence of defendant’s misappropriation of funds from the Centerview Baptist Church was properly admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits a defendant’s driving history to be admitted to show malice in a second degree murder case.

State v. Lewis · filed 2014-06-17Rule 404(b)

Therefore, the trial court admitted defendant’s driving history for the proper purpose of showing malice pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) allows evidence of sufficiently similar and closely timed other acts to prove purposes such as intent, knowledge, identity, or plan.

State v. Honeycutt · filed 2014-06-17Rule 404(b)

We further agree with the trial court that evidence of defendant’s participation in other break-ins with Bolton and his subsequent sale of the stolen jewelry at Scavenger Antiques was admissible under Rule 404(b) “as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity and absence of mistake with regard to the crimes charged in this case.”

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show intent or identity when the evidence is relevant for those purposes.

State v. Harris · filed 2014-08-19Rule 404(b)

According to well-established North Carolina law, evidence concerning the drug transactions that Detective Davis and Officer Lackey observed before Officer Lackey purchased cocaine from Defendant would have been admissible for a number of purposes, including intent and identity.

Rule 404(a)(1) permits an accused to offer evidence of a pertinent character trait; testimony that the accused showed no unnatural sexual interest in young girls merely attests to normalcy and does not establish such a trait.

State v. Clapp · filed 2014-08-05Rule 404(a)(1)

As a result, given that the excluded testimony did not tend to show the existence or non-existence of a pertinent trait of character, the trial court did not err by excluding Mr. Frazier’s testimony concerning Defendant’s lack of unnatural lust for or sexual interest in young girls.

Rule 404(a)(1) allows an accused to offer character evidence only when the trait is pertinent to an issue in the case; respectfulness toward children is not pertinent to child sexual abuse charges.

State v. Walston · filed 2014-12-19Rule 404(a)(1)

The trial court was correct in concluding that defendant’s character evidence of his respectful attitude towards children was inadmissible under Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1).

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

State v. Moore · filed 2015-01-20Rule 404(b); Rule 403

The trial court did not err in admitting evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying rule 403.

Rule 404(b) does not permit unrelated contraband to prove a defendant’s knowledge when the evidence does not connect the defendant to that contraband.

State v. McKnight · filed 2015-01-20Rule 404(b)

Under these circumstances, we find insufficient evidence to show that Defendant knew about the drugs found at 7202 Shellburne Drive.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of earlier acts when unusual similarities connect them to the charged conduct; the acts need not be identical.

State v. Waddell · filed 2015-02-03Rule 404(b)

As already discussed, there are numerous unique similarities between Defendant’s conduct described in the 404(b) testimony and in Ms. Hardin’s account, which we find satisfies the similarity prong of Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when substantial evidence links the defendant to them and the evidence is relevant to a proper purpose, subject to Rule 403 balancing.

State v. Sterling · filed 2015-03-03Rule 404(b)

Based on our review of the record before us, we conclude that the purposes for which the trial court admitted the evidence were proper, the evidence was relevant to the proceeding, and the trial court “guarded against the possibility of prejudice” by instructing the jury to consider the evidence only for those proper purposes.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act when it is relevant to a purpose other than propensity and satisfies the requirements of similarity and temporal proximity.

State v. Spikes · filed 2015-06-16Rule 404(b)

The photograph was relevant to the State's theory of the case, and the circumstances presented to the trial court satisfied the similarity and temporal proximity requirements of Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) allows evidence of other acts when it is relevant to a purpose other than showing propensity.

State v. Mangum · filed 2015-07-07Rule 404(b)

Here, the trial court properly conducted a voir dire hearing to determine whether evidence of the Walker incident was of the type that is made admissible under Rule 404(b) and was relevant for a purpose other than propensity.

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

State v. Wilson · filed 2015-10-06Rule 404(b)

The domestic violence protective order was relevant under Rule 401, and served a proper purpose under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show a defendant’s confidential relationship with a witness when that relationship helps the jury assess the witness’s credibility.

State v. Carvalho · filed 2015-10-06Rule 404(b)

The trial court did not err in concluding that Rule 404(b) permitted admission of these statements into evidence.

Rules 404(b) and 403 allow evidence of another breaking or entering committed the same night to show intent when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Campbell · filed 2015-10-20

Because the two breaking or entering offenses occurred on the same night and because the evidence tends to show that defendant’s intent in entering the church was to commit a larceny therein, we hold that Rule 404(b) does not bar the admission of this evidence. ... Because defendant committed the two breaking or entering offenses on the same night and because the evidence tends to show that defendant’s intent in entering the church was to commit a larceny therein, we hold that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of hazing to show a plan to groom students for sexual abuse, even when the hazing involved other students or was not overtly sexual.

State v. Goins · filed 2015-12-15Rule 404(b)

Therefore, the trial court did not err by admitting the hazing testimony under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act when its similarities to the charged offense show a pattern and an opportunity to commit the offense.

State v. Rosales · filed 2014-07-01Rule 404(b)

We hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that the witness’ 404(b) testimony is similar to the alleged crime, “in terms of showing a pattern and practice, [and] in terms of showing opportunities to take advantage of circumstances and individuals[.]”

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of prior sexual misconduct when the incidents lack sufficient similarity to establish a permissible purpose beyond showing propensity.

State v. Watts · filed 2016-04-05Rule 404(b)

As a result of the lack of similarity, or the lack of adequate findings by the trial court to support a finding of similarity and proper purpose, we must further hold the trial court erred by admitting Buffkin’s testimony under Rule 404(b) in the instant case.

Rule 404(b) permits surveillance recordings of other larcenies to be admitted when properly limited to a permitted purpose.

State v. Fleming · filed 2016-06-07Rule 404(b)

Surveillance recordings of other larcenies Defendant participated in were properly introduced and limited as Rule 404(b) evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes when it serves a proper purpose, such as identifying the defendant or explaining how investigators obtained matching DNA.

State v. Gates · filed 2016-08-02404(b)

Our review of the record, summarized above, reveals that Defendant could not have met his burden to show there was no proper purpose for the testimony by Officer Funcke and Detective Scott. It was relevant to prove Defendant’s identity as KL’s attacker, as the trial court stated.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another sexual act to show a common plan or pattern when the acts are sufficiently similar.

State v. Godbey · filed 2016-11-15Rule 404(b)

Here, Karen’s testimony was relevant to Stephanie’s allegations—the sexual act Karen described was admissible as it showed a common scheme or plan, pattern, and/or common modus operandi and sufficient similarity to Stephanie’s allegations of sexual abuse.

Rule 404(a)(1) bars the State from using a defendant's prior incarceration as bad character evidence when the defendant has not put his character in issue.

State v. Rios · filed 2016-12-20Rule 404(a)(1)

Even so, like evidence of a conviction, evidence of incarceration is still character evidence under Rule 404(a). ... But because defendant did not put his character in issue, the State could not purport to rebut Hodges's testimony with bad character evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act to show a common scheme or plan when the acts share relevant similarities, even if the evidence also suggests propensity.

State v. Spinks · filed 2017-11-21Rule 404(b)

Here, Katy's testimony tended to prove Defendant had a common scheme or plan to have (1) intercourse; (2) with young female children who were asleep; (3) at night; (4) while he was a guest staying overnight in a home; and (5) offered a bribe to his victims afterwards to buy their silence. ... We find no error in the admission of Katy's testimony under Rule 404(b).

Rule 405(b) permits proof of character through specific acts only when character is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense; a victim’s violent character is not an essential element of self-defense.

State v. Bass · filed 2018-10-26Rule 405(b)

Because Rule 405 limits the use of specific instances of past conduct to cases in which character is an essential element of the charge, claim, or defense, the trial court correctly excluded testimony regarding these specific prior acts of violence by Fogg.

Rule 405(b) does not treat a victim’s gang membership, possession of firearms, or tattoo as specific instances of conduct admissible to show character.

State v. Greenfield · filed 2018-12-04Rule 405(b)

We conclude that the evidence concerning Jon’s gang membership, his possession of firearms, and his tattoo do not involve “specific instances of conduct” admissible under Rule 405(b).

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

State v. Godfrey · filed 2018-12-18Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, evidence of the bed and Lick Mountain incidents was properly admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act when similarity and temporal proximity support a permissible purpose, subject to Rule 403's prejudice balancing.

State v. Oglesby · filed 2019-03-05Rule 404(b)

We hold that Cathy's testimony satisfied the requirements of Rule 404(b) and was not admitted in violation of Rule 403.

Rule 404(b) permits testimony about an officer’s prior familiarity with a defendant to support an identification, but excludes an unnecessary reference to a narcotics case.

State v. Thompson · filed 2019-04-16Rule 404(b)

Therefore, although the testimony admitted tending to show Detective Waddell was familiar with defendant’s appearance was admissible under Rule 404(b) as relevant for a purpose other than to establish defendant’s character, the detail that Detective Waddell encountered defendant related to a narcotics case constituted error.

Rule 404(b) permits testimony establishing an officer’s familiarity with a defendant for identification, but excludes an unrelated narcotics reference that adds nothing to the identification.

State v. Thompson · filed 2019-05-21Rule 404(b)

Therefore, although the testimony admitted tending to show Detective Waddell was familiar with defendant’s appearance was admissible under Rule 404(b) as relevant for a purpose other than to establish defendant’s character, the detail that Detective Waddell encountered defendant related to a narcotics case constituted error.

Rule 404(a)(2) permits the prosecution to offer evidence of a homicide victim’s peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2020-02-18Rule 404(a)(2)

This testimony was inadmissible under Rule 404(a)(2) because it was not offered to rebut any testimony offered by Defendant that Darrell was the first aggressor in the altercation between Mitchell and the Council brothers. We therefore conclude that the admission of this testimony was error.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act when it explains how a defendant acquired a murder weapon and is probative for a purpose other than propensity.

State v. Washington · filed 2021-05-18Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, Rule 404(b) did not require its exclusion because it was probative for reasons other than ... Defendant’s propensity to commit breaking and entering.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act to show intent, motive, plan, or design when the acts are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Pickens · filed 2022-08-02Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, the Rule 404(b) evidence was sufficiently similar and not too remote in time and the trial court did not err by admitting it.

Section 8C-1 permits relevant evidence of prior acts for purposes such as proving identity, intent, or motive, subject to Rule 403’s balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice.

State v. Davis · filed 2023-01-17Rules 401, 402, 403, and 404(b)

Defendant’s prior acts were properly admitted under North Carolina Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404(b).

Section 8C-1 permits relevant evidence of other acts to show identity when the acts are sufficiently similar and close in time and their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Moore · filed 2023-10-03

The trial court did not err, and certainly did not commit plain error, in admitting Sharek’s testimony under Rules 403 and 404(b).

Rule 404(b) requires other-act evidence offered to show plan or intent to be sufficiently similar to the charged offense.

State v. Reber · filed 2023-05-16Rule 404(b)

The evidence, presented through a text message conversation, that Defendant previously engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with an adult woman who had been drinking is not sufficiently similar to show that Defendant possessed any plan or intent to engage in sexual acts with Khloe.

Rule 404(b) does not require identical circumstances between a charged offense and a prior act; the incidents must share unusual facts relevant to a purpose other than propensity.

State v. Pickens · filed 2023-10-20Rule 404(b)

Our Rule 404(b) standard does not require identical or even near-identical circumstances between the charged offense and the prior bad act for evidence of the prior bad act to be admissible.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act when its timing and circumstances help explain the charged crime.

State v. Burnett · filed 2023-12-19Rule 404(b)

The trial court properly admitted evidence of Defendant disabling an electronic monitoring device two weeks prior to Williams’ murder as meeting temporal proximity and other circumstances required under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act that is sufficiently similar and close in time to the charged act, subject to Rule 403’s balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice.

State v. Nova · filed 2024-09-17R. 404(b), R. 403

We hold that the trial court did not err by admitting B.T.’s testimony because it satisfies the similarity and temporal proximity requirements of Rule 404(b). We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that B.T.’s testimony was more probative than prejudicial after conducting a Rule 403 balancing test.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence that a defendant knew a victim was a convicted felon to show the defendant’s state of mind in a self-defense claim.

State v. Hague · filed 2024-08-20Rule 404(b)

Defendant did not wish to testify about Tommy’s status as a convicted felon to show Tommy had a propensity for violence or that his previous convictions were connected to his behavior that day; rather, Defendant’s proposed testimony was relevant to his state of mind at the time he shot Tommy and was not prohibited by Rule 404(b).

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

State v. Gillard · filed 2024-12-13Rule 404(b)

These facts are sufficient in both temporal proximity and similarity to demonstrate a common plan or scheme to rape and rob Holland on the night she was murdered.

Rule 404(a)(2) does not allow rebuttal evidence of a victim’s violent character based on favorable testimony that does not address the victim’s peacefulness or another pertinent character trait.

State v. Greenfield · filed 2025-02-19Rule 404(a)(2)

We conclude the trial court did not err by excluding evidence of Jon’s gang affiliation, prior convictions, and tattoo as the testimony cited by Defendant does not open the door to rebuttal evidence of Jon’s character for violence.

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

State v. Ellis · filed 2025-06-04Rule 404(b)

We conclude that the trial court properly allowed evidence of Defendant’s prior bad act—a previous sexual offense against Ann in Guilford County—under Rule 404(b) to demonstrate a common plan or scheme.

Rule 404(b) permits prior threats to show motive or intent when they are sufficiently similar to the charged conduct; a three-year gap does not necessarily make them inadmissible.

State v. Price · filed 2025-07-16Rule 404(b)

In sum, because Defendant’s prior bad acts satisfied both the similarity and temporal proximity requirements, the trial court did not err by admitting the 404(b) evidence.

Rule 404(b) governs evidence of specific prior acts; general remarks about a defendant’s reputation do not fall within it.

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

At the outset, the statements at issue in the body camera footage are not “specific acts” nor other “crimes, wrongs, or acts” governed by Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits testimony about a defendant’s prior assault when it explains a witness’s fear while testifying rather than the defendant’s violent disposition.

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

Here, Nevel’s testimony falls within these permissible purposes under Rule 404(b). Defendant has not demonstrated error, much less plain error.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes to show motive rather than character, while Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude that evidence if it is unduly prejudicial.

State v. Cottingham · filed 2025-09-17Rule 404(b); Rule 403

Under Rule 404, evidence of other crimes committed by Defendant may be admissible where its relevance is for some reason other than showing Defendant’s character, such as showing “motive.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2023). ... We conclude the evidence concerning Defendant’s Hoke County charges was relevant to show that Defendant had a motive to kill Ms. Stone as he was facing felony charges for his alleged assault and kidnapping of Ms. Stone. ... Under 403, the trial court may still in its discretion keep out the evidence if it determines the evidence would be unduly prejudicial. We conclude, however, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to allow the State to introduce the evidence concerning Defendant’s Hoke County charges.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of sufficiently similar prior acts to show absence of mistake when the evidence is relevant to a disputed issue other than character.

State v. Hoffman · filed 2026-01-07Rule 404(b)

We conclude there is competent evidence in the Record from testimony at trial to support the findings for the proper purpose of absence of mistake and that these findings support the trial court’s conclusion of law that this evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) excludes evidence of other acts when its only probative value is to show a defendant’s propensity to commit the charged offense.

State v. Strickland · filed 2026-02-18Rule 404(b)

While the grounds where Defendant’s counsel objected could reasonably be tied to Defendant telling Locklear he had previously “killed somebody” and not to the prior marijuana use, presuming, without deciding, the objection addressed Defendant’s purported marijuana use, Defendant’s objection was properly overruled.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show motive, including testimony about an outstanding warrant offered to explain why a defendant fled.

State v. Mangar · filed 2026-03-18Rule 404(b)

Rule 404(b) permits admission of other acts evidence for proper purposes including motive. ... The trial court admitted evidence of the warrant solely to establish a possible motive for defendant to flee. ... We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of another act to prove identity when the defendant admits committing the charged act and offers no alibi.

State v. Blanding · filed 2026-03-18Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, because defendant had no alibi and always admitted that he shot Mr. Gooch and Mr. Baines, the admission of evidence about the Service Foods incident as probative of identity was erroneous.

Section 8C-1 permits evidence of a similar assault to show intent under Rule 404(b) when it has probative value beyond showing propensity and satisfies Rule 403.

State v. Fernandez · filed 2026-05-20Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err under Rule 404(b) or Rule 403 by admitting evidence of Defendant’s attack on Payne-Daughtry.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it is relevant to an issue other than propensity, subject to Rule 403’s limit on unfair prejudice.

State v. Jones · filed 2026-04-15Rule 404(b)

Because the statements were relevant for various reasons other than defendant’s propensity to commit the charged offenses and more probative than prejudicial, the trial court did not err in admitting the full videos.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a victim’s prior felony convictions to show a self-defense claimant’s state of mind when the claimant knew the victim was a felon and possessed firearms, even without knowing the specific offenses.

State v. Hague · filed 2026-05-22Rule 404(b)

Because Mr. Hague intended to introduce Mr. Cass’s felony convictions to prove his state of mind, not to prove Mr. Cass acted in conformity with his prior drug possession and assault convictions, the trial court erred by excluding the evidence under Rule 404(b).

Rule 601(b) asks whether a witness can distinguish truth from falsehood, regardless of the witness’s age or intellectual ability.

State v. Davis · filed 1992-07-07Rule 601(b)

Defendant misapplies Rule 601(b). Rule 601(b) does not ask how bright, how young, or how old a witness is. Instead, the question is: does the witness have the capacity to understand the difference between telling the truth and lying?

Rule 601(b) permits a child to testify when her testimony shows she understands her duty to tell the truth; denying a separate voir dire is harmless when preliminary testimony establishes that understanding.

State v. Huntley · filed 1991-12-17Rule 601(b)

Similarly, in the present case, as long as the victim’s preliminary testimony supported a conclusion that she understood her duty to tell the truth, then the court’s failure to grant a voir dire examination by defendant’s counsel is harmless error. We find the testimony supports such a conclusion, and any error is harmless.

Rule 601(b) does not require a separate express finding that a child can express herself when the trial court’s findings and competency ruling show that it exercised its discretion.

State v. Eason · filed 1991-04-03Rule 601(b)

Although the trial court did not make a specific finding as to whether the child was capable of expressing herself concerning the matters as to which she was to testify, the findings made by the trial court and its conclusion that she was competent clearly establish that the trial court exercised its discretion in declaring her competent as a witness.

Rules 104(a) and 601(b) require a judge to personally examine or observe a child on voir dire before finding the child incompetent to testify; counsel’s stipulation alone is insufficient.

State v. Fearing · filed 1985-12-10Rules 104(a) and 601(b)

Obviously, there can be no informed exercise of discretion where a trial judge merely adopts the stipulations of counsel that a child is not competent to testify without ever having personally examined or observed the child on voir dire. The competency of a child witness to testify at trial is not a proper subject for stipulation of counsel absent the trial judge's independent finding pursuant to his opportunity to personally examine or observe the child on voir dire.

Rule 601(b) does not disqualify a witness for drug use alone; drug use affects competency only when it impairs the witness’s ability to communicate or understand the duty to tell the truth.

State v. Fields · filed 1985-12-10Rule 601(b)

And where the effect of drug use is concerned, in particular, the question is more properly one of the witness’s credibility, not his competence. As such, it is in the jury’s province to weigh his evidence, not in the court’s to bar it.

Rule 602 permits a witness’s testimony that she heard a statement to establish her personal knowledge of it without separate proof that she could hear the speaker.

State v. Riddick · filed 1986-02-18Rule 602

Michele’s testimony that she in fact heard the defendant make the statements in question ipso facto amounted to testimony that she had the ability to hear him make those statements. No more was required to establish her personal knowledge under Rule 602, but the defendant was, of course, free to cross-examine her as to such matters.

Rule 104(a) permits a judge deciding a preliminary question of witness competency to consider relevant, reliable information even if it is inadmissible under the rules of evidence.

Matter of Will of Leonard · filed 1986-09-02Rule 104(a)

The Rule’s plain meaning, the Commentary to the Rule, and sound judgment all contemplate that, in deciding preliminary matters, the trial court will consider any relevant and reliable information that comes to its attention, whether or not that information is technically admissible under the rules of evidence.

Rule 601(c) does not bar testimony about a deceased donor’s intent when the witnesses are not testifying against the donor’s interest.

Hunt v. Hunt · filed 1987-05-05Rule 601(c)

Neither plaintiff nor her father are testifying against the interest of Ethel W. Teague. ... Having determined that the evidence concerning intent was not improperly admitted under Rule 601(c), we turn to defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by holding that the checks written to defendant were gifts to plaintiff only.