N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 611(c) permits leading questions when counsel examines an adverse party, including on direct examination.

Nicholson v. Thom · filed 2014-09-16Rule 611(c)

The questioning Defendant refers to as impermissible occurred entirely on direct and redirect examination of Defendant, an adverse party. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 611, leading questions were permissible.

Rule 611(b) permits cross-examination about the source and amount of an expert witness’s fee to test the witness’s partiality.

State v. Singletary · filed 2016-05-03Rule 611(b)

The source and amount of a fee paid to an expert witness is a permissible topic for cross-examination, as it allows the opposing party to probe the witnesses’ partiality, if any, towards the party by whom the expert was called.

Rule 611(a) gives trial judges discretion to control cross-examination, including aggressive questioning that does not place incompetent or prejudicial matters before the jury.

State v. Cesnik · filed 2017-02-07Rule 611(a)

Rule 611(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence states "[t]he court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 611(a) (2015). ... As a result, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to aggressively cross-examine Bunce.

Rule 611(b) permits cross-examination on relevant matters even when they were not covered on direct examination.

State v. Edwards · filed 2018-09-18Rule 611(b)

As determined above, Rule 106 is inapplicable in this case and Rule 611 does not limit cross-examination to those matters raised during direct examination.

Rule 614(b) permits a trial judge to ask a witness clarifying questions without expressing an opinion about the evidence or the witness's credibility.

State v. Davis · filed 2019-08-06Rule 614(b)

We hold that the trial court's questioning of Lindsay did not exceed the scope of Rule 614.

Rule 605 bars the presiding judge from testifying at a trial, but permits a judge from an earlier proceeding to testify before a different judge.

State v. Wendorf · filed 2020-12-01Rule 605

In the de novo hearing before Judge Puckett, Rule 605 prohibited Judge Puckett, not Judge Boone, from testifying.

Rule 611(a) permits a trial judge to interrupt questioning to avoid wasting time and keep the presentation of evidence orderly.

Angarita v. Edwards · filed 2021-08-03Rule 611(a)

Turning first to the interruptions, it is apparent that the trial judge interrupted only in the interests of expediency and to bring a pro se Defendant into compliance with the rules of evidence.2 In this regard, the trial court’s actions were helpful to Defendant, if anything.

Section 8C-1 supports a trial court’s discretion to reopen a case on its own motion to admit additional evidence.

Shropshire v. Shropshire · filed 2022-06-21

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence, which afford the trial court discretion, also support the conclusion a trial court may, on its own motion, reopen a case to ... allow for additional evidence.

Rule 614 permits a judge to call and question witnesses without, by those acts alone, losing impartiality.

In re J.R. · filed 2022-12-16

Rule 614 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence expressly allows judges to participate by calling witnesses and questioning them. The rule states that “[t]he court may, on its own motion . . . call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine witnesses thus called.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 614(a) (2021). Additionally, “[t]he court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or by a party.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 614(b) (2021). In neither case does a trial court shed its impartiality or abandon its role as an independent decisionmaker.

Rule 614(b) permits a trial court to question a witness called by a party.

LoNano v. Murphy · filed 2025-06-18(b)

But the trial court did not exceed its authority by questioning Plaintiff.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to prove identity when unusual facts or particularly similar acts indicate that the same person committed both crimes.

State v. Schultz · filed 1987-12-22Rule 404(b)

Application of the identity exception of Rule 404(b) requires that some unusual facts or particularly similar acts be present in both crimes indicating that the same person committed both crimes.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to establish identity when the similarities support a reasonable inference that the same person committed both crimes; the similarities need not be bizarre or unique.

State v. Green · filed 1988-03-09Rule 404(b)

Defendant misapprehends the nature of the standard imposed by Rule 404(b) for the admission of similar crimes as evidence of identity. It is not necessary that the modus operandi of the crime the state seeks to have admitted rise to the level of the unique and bizarre.

Rule 404(b)'s identity exception does not permit testimony suggesting other acts when the defendant's identity is not in dispute.

State v. General · filed 1988-09-20Rule 404(b)

There was no question of identity and for this reason, the testimony should not have been admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to prove identity only when the evidence directly indicates that the defendant committed that crime.

State v. Jeter · filed 1989-05-02Rule 404(b)

Under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b), N.C. Rules of Evidence, as it was long before this rule was enacted, evidence as to other crimes is admissible to prove several things, including the defendant’s identity. ... But, as defendant correctly maintains, for such evidence to be admissible it must directly indicate that he committed the other offense; and in State v. Breeden, 306 N.C. 533, 293 S.E. 2d 788 (1982), a new trial was ordered because the evidence as to the defendant’s participation in the similar crime was not direct, but circumstantial. ... The similarity of this evidence to that presented in Breeden is obvious; and since it is entirely circumstantial, evidence of the Douglas crime was not admissible to prove that defendant is the one who attacked Mrs. Atahan.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another offense to show identity or a common plan.

State v. Bullock · filed 1989-09-19Rule 404(b)

We conclude that evidence of the offense in Wake County was admissible both to show identity and under the common plan exception.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime when it is relevant to identity or another purpose besides showing a defendant’s propensity to commit the charged crime.

State v. Cummings · filed 1990-03-01Rule 404(b)

We disagree and find that the evidence was properly admitted as an exception pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1988).

Rule 404(b) permits circumstantial evidence of another offense to prove identity when its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

State v. Jeter · filed 1990-04-05Rule 404(b)

Under the statutory scheme of Rules 403 and 404, the concern that anything other than direct evidence of a defendant’s identity in a similar offense might “mislead [the jury] and raise a legally spurious presumption of guilt” is met instead by the balancing test required by Rule 403: the critical inquiry regarding evidence of other offenses introduced for purposes of showing defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the offense for which he is being tried is not whether it is direct or circumstantial, but whether its tendency to prove identity in the charged offense substantially outweighs any tendency unfairly to prejudice the defendant.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a similar prior act to prove the perpetrator’s identity.

State v. Phillips · filed 1991-01-10Rule 404(b)

The evidence was therefore relevant and admissible under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b), for the purpose of proving identity.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior threat against the victim when it is relevant to the defendant’s intent in the charged attack.

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

Evidence of other offenses committed by the defendant is admissible under Rule 404(b) so long as it is relevant to the other facts at issue. ... The testimony involved a direct threat to Mrs. Hill made a few weeks before the assault and was relevant and admissible.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to prove identity when the jury could find that the same person committed both crimes and that the defendant committed the other crime.

State v. Moseley · filed 1994-07-29Rule 404(b)

There was evidence from which the jury could find that the two murders were committed by the same person. There was also evidence from which the jury could find the defendant committed the murder in Stokes County. If the same person committed both murders, proof that the defendant committed the Stokes County murder is proof he committed the murder for which he was being tried. This is evidence, for its relevance, which does not depend on the proof of the character of the defendant by showing he committed a crime.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to prove the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator.

State v. Burton · filed 1995-08-01Rule 404(b)

Evidence that defendant was firing the gun in question shortly before the events at the mobile home park was admissible to prove defendant’s identity as the person who fired the stray 9mm bullet that killed Brittany.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior crimes to prove identity when unusual similarities indicate that the same person committed both crimes.

State v. Hoffman · filed 1998-10-09Rule 404(b)

The trial court properly concluded that Rule 404(b) did not preclude admission of this evidence for the purpose of proving the identity of the perpetrator of these crimes.

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of another person's prior act to prove identity when the act shares no unusual facts with the charged crime and supports only a speculative inference of guilt.

State v. Hamilton · filed 1999-10-08Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, the trial court did not err by excluding evidence of Knight’s 1987 knife threat pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to prove identity when similarities between the acts support a reasonable inference that the same person committed both.

State v. Sokolowski · filed 1999-12-03Rule 404(b)

In the instant case, the unusual, unique, and bizarre circumstances of the two deaths, including the dismemberment of the bodies; the severing of the ears; the saving of those ears; and the building of two bonfires, one about the time Ellwood mysteriously disappeared and the other at the time Hill’s charred head and body parts were found, reveal a contrived, common plan showing the same person committed both crimes. These similarities support a reasonable inference that the same person committed both the earlier and later acts. Accordingly, defendant’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a pending impaired driving charge to prove malice in a second degree murder prosecution when offered to show state of mind rather than propensity.

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

Where the State does not offer evidence of a pending charge to show defendant’s propensity to drive while impaired, but to show the requisite mental state for a conviction of second degree murder, the trial court does not err by admitting such evidence.

Rule 404(b) does not admit evidence of other crimes to prove identity when that evidence does not connect the defendant to the charged crimes.

State v. Perry · filed 2001-02-06Rule 404(b)

Thus, evidence of property stolen in the car break-ins and Chapel Hill robbery would not have been admissible under Rule 404(b) had defendant been tried separately upon the charges arising out of the Durham Hispanic home invasions.

Rules 404(b) and 403 permit evidence of a sufficiently similar and recent prior crime to show the perpetrator’s identity when its probative value is not outweighed by prejudice.

State v. Barkley · filed 2001-07-03Rules 404(b) and 403

We hold the rape of Ferguson was not too remote in time and the trial court did not err in admitting Ferguson’s testimony pursuant to Rule 404(b) and Rule 403.

Evidence of another crime may be admitted to establish identity when the incidents are sufficiently similar and close in time to be more probative than prejudicial.

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

We detect no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision in the instant case allowing the admission of evidence pertaining to the 27 December 1995 armed robbery, as it was sufficiently similar to events on 22 December 1995.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to show motive; a four-year gap affects the evidence’s weight rather than its admissibility.

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

The fact that Holadia’s drug transaction with Eddie occurred four years before this crime did not preclude the admissibility of the evidence, but rather affected the weight to be given that evidence. ... We hold that the trial court did not commit error in admitting this testimony into evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts offered for a purpose other than showing a defendant’s propensity to commit the charged crime.

State v. Carrilo · filed 2002-04-02Rule 404(b)

Because the evidence of prior acts of domestic violence toward Ms. Marin was offered for a purpose other than to show the propensity of defendant to commit the crime for which he was being tried, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior misconduct to show ill will toward the victim when it is relevant to an issue other than propensity to commit the charged offense.

State v. Hannah · filed 2002-04-16Rule 404(b)

Thus, the evidence is relevant to issues other than defendant’s propensity to commit the crimes for which he is charged. We therefore hold that the evidence of defendant’s prior drug use was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s prior acts to establish identity when distinctive similarities connect them to the charged crimes.

State v. Hyatt · filed 2002-06-28Rule 404(b)

The trial court properly admitted evidence of the Brigmon case pursuant to Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another incident for the limited purposes of identity and opportunity.

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

Furthermore, the trial court properly limited the use of that evidence to identity and opportunity. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another sexual assault to show intent to commit rape and the purpose for confining, restraining, or removing a victim.

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

Moreover, evidence that defendant broke into R.H.'s residence and sexually assaulted her on 5 September 2002 was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show, inter alia, his intent to commit rape when he entered D.T.'s residence on 7 March 2002, as well as his purpose in confining, restraining, or removing D.T. while inside her residence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of gang involvement when it helps identify the defendant as the perpetrator.

State v. Medina · filed 2005-12-06Rule 404(b)

Defendant’s identity was at issue at trial. Stitt’s familiarity with the gang’s color of blue and her knowledge of defendant’s involvement in the gang aided her in identifying defendant as the perpetrator. “This testimony was relevant and admissible for the purpose of identifying defendant.”

Rule 404(b) does not apply to testimony that refers to no prior crime, wrong, or act by the defendant.

State v. Matthews · filed 2006-01-17Rule 404(b)

This testimony does not, however, refer to prior crimes, wrongs, or acts of defendant and, therefore, falls outside of the scope of Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to establish identity when it is not used to show that a person acted in conformity with their character.

State v. Reid · filed 2006-02-07Rule 404(b)

This testimony was properly admitted for the purpose of establishing how Fields could identify defendant and was not admitted “to prove the character of [defendant] in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.”

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior crime to establish identity or a common plan when the crimes are sufficiently similar.

State v. Corum · filed 2006-02-21Rule 404(b)

Defendant’s alleged robbery of the Quick Chek convenience store was sufficiently similar to the charged robbery at issue in the case before us to allow admission of Staley’s testimony. The robberies occurred in neighboring counties at night within a two-day period. Both robberies occurred at convenience stores. Also, the perpetrator of both robberies wore gloves and a blue hood or mask of similar description. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by allowing Staley’s testimony and we overrule this assignment of error.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to prove identity when the acts are sufficiently close in time and unusually similar.

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

We agree with the trial court that the evidence admitted here is sufficiently close in time and unusually similar in nature to show defendant's identity.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence that a defendant later possessed the gun used in a shooting to establish the shooter's identity.

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

Here, evidence tending to show that, at the time of his flight from and subsequent arrest by Officer Wright on 13 January 2006, Defendant was carrying the gun that was also used to shoot Slocum was admissible under Rule 404(b) to establish Defendant's identity as Slocum's shooter.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior assaults when they are sufficiently similar and close in time to the charged offense, subject to Rule 403’s prejudice balance.

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

In light of these similarities, we hold that admission of the witnesses’ testimony was appropriate and that the trial court did not err.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another crime to prove identity when the crimes are sufficiently similar and close in time.

State v. Stacey · filed 2009-02-03Rule 404(b)

We hold that there was substantial evidence of similarity between the Piedmont robbery and the Postal robbery and, thus, that the trial court properly admitted the Piedmont tellers' testimony to show, inter alia, Defendant's identity as the perpetrator.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of an earlier assault to establish identity when it shows the defendant possessed the gun used in the charged murder.

State v. Dean · filed 2009-04-07Rule 404(b)

Jones’ testimony was relevant to show Defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of Reginald Johnson’s murder. Special Agent Tanner testified that a shell casing recovered from the scene of the assault on Jones was fired from the same gun which ejected shell casings at the scene of Reginald Johnson’s murder. Jones’ testimony, in turn, tended to show that Defendant was in possession and control of that gun less than forty-eight hours before the murder. We conclude that Jones’ testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a subsequent act to prove knowledge when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Hargrave · filed 2009-08-04Rule 404(b)

In sum, because the testimony pertaining to defendant’s subsequent driving with a revoked license was admitted to show defendant’s knowledge and was not more prejudicial than probative, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of sufficiently similar, timely acts to prove intent when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Gettys · filed 2009-08-04Rule 404(b)

Mosbey's testimony shows that defendant's course of conduct with him was substantially similar to the course of conduct towards Cannon, during the same period of time. The similarities between defendant's behavior towards both Cannon and Mosbey were probative evidence of defendant's intentions towards Cannon. Although the admission of this evidence could arguably also have been prejudicial towards defendant, the trial judge, after carefully reviewing the testimony, found the evidence to be more probative than prejudicial, and we find no abuse of discretion in this decision.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior crime to prove identity when the similarities support a reasonable inference that the same person committed both crimes and are not generic to the crime itself.

State v. Horton · filed 2014-05-06Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, defendant is unable to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the video surveillance footage of the shoe shop break-in under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act to prove identity when distinctive similarities make it likely that the same person committed both acts.

State v. Thomas · filed 2019-10-15Rule 404(b)

We hold the evidence was properly admitted under Rules 404(b) and 401 for purposes of proving defendant’s identity.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to establish identity when identity is at issue and the circumstances tend to show the same person committed both acts.

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

Here, the State introduced evidence of Defendant’s alleged involvement in the Denny’s shooting for the permissible purpose of establishing identity. Even assuming the evidence was improperly admitted, Defendant has not established prejudice.

Rules 403 and 404(b) permit evidence of prior sexual contact with the same witness when it is probative of knowledge, opportunity, intent, or plan and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Cameron · filed 1986-10-21Rules 403 and 404(b)

In our view, the evidence complained of was reasonably probative of defendant’s knowledge, opportunity, intent, and plan. We do not view it as so prejudicial as to outweigh its probative value and render it inadmissible.

Rule 404(b) bars evidence of prior acts offered solely to show that a defendant has a violent character and acted in conformity with it.

State v. Mills · filed 1986-12-30Rule 404(b)

Here, each of these incidents was clearly relevant to no other issue than to show that the defendant was a violent man and therefore must have been the aggressor on 14 August when he shot and killed Danny Smith. All of this evidence was in direct contravention of Rule 404(b) and the trial court erred in allowing it.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act to show motive and intent, even if the act may have violated a court order.

Matter of Paul · filed 1987-03-03Rule 404(b)

This evidence is relevant to show respondent’s motive and intent to make the public aware of his belief that the prosecution of Moorman was racially motivated, even if to do so would violate a court order. The trial court, therefore, properly admitted this evidence pursuant to G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior acts to prove motive, intent, or absence of mistake when relevant to disputed issues.

Medina v. Town and Country Ford, Inc. · filed 1987-05-19Rule 404(b)

We hold that the similar occurrence evidence admitted here was probative of defendant's motive, intent, absence of mistake and possible bad faith in its dealings with plaintiff and did not simply portray an unrelated "bad act" by defendant. See id. As such, the evidence was relevant to the issues of unfair and deceptive trade practices, malicious prosecution and punitive damages, and it thus was properly admitted under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a similar sexual assault to show a common plan or scheme; exclusion under Rule 403 is within the trial judge’s discretion.

State v. Morrison · filed 1987-05-05Rule 404(b); Rule 403

The witness’s testimony was properly admissible to show that the prior crime involved a common plan or scheme to the present offense charged. ... Therefore, the testimony was properly admitted under Rule 404(b). ... Whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge. ... Defendant has failed to show that the trial judge abused his discretion. Thus, we hold that the testimony was properly admitted.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior offense to prove intent when intent is at issue.

State v. Hall · filed 1987-05-05Rule 404(b)

Evidence of a prior offense is admissible, however, when it is offered to prove some other, relevant purpose, such as motive, opportunity, knowledge or intent. ... Here, evidence of defendant’s prior conviction was offered to prove that his intent in assaulting and kidnapping his victim was to rape her. We hold that it was properly admitted for that purpose.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar sexual assaults when their shared circumstances tend to prove a common plan or scheme.

State v. Teeter · filed 1987-05-19Rule 404(b)

We conclude that the testimony of these witnesses tended to prove a continuing and ongoing course of sexual molestation by defendant of mentally retarded young women employed under his supervision, and a common plan or scheme to take sexual advantage of his relationship of authority over these women. The evidence was therefore relevant and admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) does not bar testimony about a defendant’s prior firearm possession when it suggests neither unlawful conduct nor a disposition toward violence.

State v. Knight · filed 1987-09-15Rule 404(b)

Defendant’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding, the evidence does not suggest that defendant’s possession of a firearm at any previous time was unlawful nor does it attribute to him a criminal disposition or a character prone to violence.

Rules 608(b) and 404(b) permit testimony about a party’s attempt to alter blood test results when it is offered to show the party’s knowledge rather than to attack credibility or prove character conformity.

Lay v. Mangum · filed 1987-10-06Rules 608(b) and 404(b)

We find that this testimony in question was not introduced for the purpose of attacking the witness’ credibility as provided in Rule 608 but instead was offered for the purpose of showing the course of conduct taken by the plaintiff to affect the results of the blood test which would determine the outcome of the claim for child support levied against the plaintiff. ... The evidence in question of the plaintiff’s attempt to bribe the witness and subornate perjury was not being introduced to prove the plaintiffs character in order to show conformity as provided in Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar acts for a purpose other than proving character when the incidents are sufficiently similar and not too remote.

State v. Bagley · filed 1987-12-02Rule 404(b)

Such evidence is relevant and admissible under Rule 404(b) if the incidents are sufficiently similar and not too remote.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it is relevant to a fact or issue other than the defendant’s character.

State v. Rael · filed 1988-02-03Rule 404(b)

Since the exhibits and testimony were relevant to a fact or issue other than the character of the accused, Rule 404(b) did not require that they be excluded from the evidence at trial.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show a purpose such as scheme or intent when the acts are sufficiently similar and recent, subject to Rule 403 balancing.

State v. Boyd · filed 1988-02-03Rule 404(b); Rule 403

We conclude that Mrs. Boyd’s testimony concerning her husband’s other act of misconduct with her minor cousin was admissible under the exception of Rule 404(b). Furthermore, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to exclude this testimony under the balancing test of Rule 403 since the alleged incident was sufficiently similar to the act charged and not too remote in time.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts to show intent or absence of mistake.

State v. Roth · filed 1988-04-05Rule 404(b)

We hold that the agent’s testimony was properly admitted to show defendant’s intent to deceive. The testimony also indicated that defendant was very familiar with the purchase and use of flight coupons and constituted evidence of the absence of any mistake on defendant’s part in tendering the flight coupon.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior assaults on a murder victim when the assaults tend to prove the defendant’s malice toward the victim.

State v. Spruill · filed 1987-10-07Rule 404(b)

If evidence of the other acts tends to prove any other relevant fact such evidence is not excluded. ... We hold that the evidence that defendant on previous occasions had assaulted Beatrice Williams was competent to prove his malice toward her and was admissible.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s other sexual acts with the same victim when it is relevant to an issue other than character.

State v. Spaugh · filed 1988-02-03Rule 404(b)

We conclude that the victim’s testimony concerning her father’s other acts of sexual intercourse with her was admissible under Rule 404. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to exclude this testimony under Rule 403.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another sex offense against the same victim when it is relevant to a permitted purpose such as motive, intent, or plan.

State v. Miller · filed 1988-02-03Rule 404(b)

The evidence that defendant had committed another sex offense against the same child, his young son, on the day after the offense for which he was being tried was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes to show motive or intent.

State v. Bray · filed 1988-03-09Rule 404(b)

The testimony of Vigil and Harriman was admissible to show intent and motive. Their testimony shows that defendant and Rios intended to escape from jail, then do whatever was necessary to avoid capture, and therefore that they had a motive for killing Trooper Coggins. ... We therefore hold that Vigil’s and Harriman’s testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) makes an officer’s reference to a defendant’s unspecified prior charge improper evidence in these circumstances.

State v. Hogan · filed 1988-03-09Rule 404(b)

Under these circumstances, Detective Richardson’s statement about an unspecific previous charge against defendant in Maryland, while improper under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b), could not have resulted in “substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant’s case.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1061 (1983).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s other sexual acts against the same victim.

State v. Allen · filed 1988-12-06Rule 404(b)

Evidence of other sexual acts committed by defendant against the victim is clearly admissible under Rule 404 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. Rule 404(b) allows the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts to show motive, opportunity, intent, plan or identity.

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of a prior fire when the State has not shown that the defendant was connected to it.

State v. Clark · filed 1988-06-21Rule 404(b)

Moreover, we pointed out that because the State had failed to show that defendant had had any connection with the previous fires, the exception for the admission of prior bad acts ... set out by G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) was unavailable to the State. The same holds true in the present case and we accordingly award Clark a new trial.

Rule 404(b) requires prior bad acts offered to show a common plan to be sufficiently similar and close enough in time to the charged acts to be admissible.

State v. Jones · filed 1988-06-30Rule 404(b)

With these considerations bearing great weight, this Court has required that evidence of prior bad acts, admitted to show a common plan under Rule 404(b), be “sufficiently similar and not so remote in time” before they can be admitted against a defendant.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts relevant to motive, including through extrinsic evidence.

State v. McQueen · filed 1989-03-02Rule 404(b)

The nature of the prior altercation between defendant and his wife was therefore proper impeachment under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) because it related to his motive for carrying weapons and traveling to this state. Under Rule 404(b), evidence with regard to extrinsic acts is not limited to cross-examination and may be provided by extrinsic evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits cross-examination about a defendant’s prior acts to prove absence of entrapment when the defendant raises that issue.

State v. Artis · filed 1988-10-18Rule 404(b)

By his testimony, defendant raised the issue of entrapment. Rule 404(b) allows the State on cross-examination to question defendant concerning the prior sale to Agent Bazemore to prove absence of entrapment.

Rules 404(b) and 403 permit evidence of prior sexual acts when the acts are sufficiently similar and their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Roberson · filed 1989-02-21Rule 404(b); Rule 403

Therefore, we hold that the testimony of Melissa and Crystal and the corroborating evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant’s prior threat against the victim when it tends to show premeditation and deliberation or to negate self-defense.

State v. Groves · filed 1989-05-04Rule 404(b)

Evidence that approximately two weeks before he killed Peanut Williams the defendant threatened to kill him, or to kill a group of which he was a member, was relevant and admissible as evidence tending to show premeditation and deliberation and to negate self-defense. ... As a result, it was not excludable under Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior acts to prove a defendant’s plan, motive, or intent when the evidence is admissible under Rule 403.

State v. Pruitt · filed 1989-06-20Rule 404(b)

In the present case we conclude that the strikingly similar behavior attributed to defendant by all three women — befriending the women; luring them into a dating relationship; and then, after gaining their trust, using physical violence and/or the threat of a deadly weapon to force each woman to engage in vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, cunnilingus, and fellatio — rendered the testimony of defendant’s former lovers, D. B. and P. S., admissible to prove defendant’s modus operandi, plan, motive and intent.

Rule 404(b) requires a demonstrable connection between the defendant and an earlier act before evidence of that act can be admitted against the defendant.

State v. English · filed 1989-09-19Rule 404(b)

Such an inference clearly cannot be supported absent a demonstrable nexus between the defendant and the act sought to be introduced against him. No such nexus is present here.

Rule 404(b) does not admit unrelated misconduct as evidence of a plan or scheme when it serves only to suggest that the defendant acted in conformity with a character trait.

State v. Maxwell · filed 1989-10-17Rule 404(b)

This evidence does not establish a plan or scheme to commit the offenses charged. In fact, it does little more than impermissibly inject character evidence which raises the question of whether defendant acted in conformity with these character traits at the times in question.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it is relevant to a purpose other than showing the defendant’s propensity, even if it also suggests that propensity.

State v. Coffey · filed 1990-03-01Rule 404(b)

The evidence was relevant and admissible for this purpose, even though it also tended to show the defendant’s character and propensity to commit such acts.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act when it explains the chain of circumstances of the charged crime rather than serving only to show propensity.

State v. Agee · filed 1990-05-10Rule 404(b)

Because the evidence of defendant’s marijuana possession served the purpose of establishing the chain of circumstances leading up to his arrest for possession of LSD, Rule 404(b) did not require its exclusion as evidence probative only of defendant’s propensity to possess illegal drugs.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior act to show a defendant’s knowledge when the trial court reasonably finds it relevant.

State v. Liner · filed 1990-06-05Rule 404(b)

The record clearly discloses that Judge Hight did not abuse his discretion in admitting Barbee’s testimony concerning the prior acts of defendant in supplying drugs to a third person.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of employees’ prior arrests and plea arrangements when it tends to show a defendant’s intent or plan.

State v. Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc. · filed 1990-06-05Rule 404(b)

Furthermore, testimony concerning prior arrests, plea bargains, and convictions by employees of Cinema Blue is admissible under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b) if it tends to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, or knowledge on the part of a defendant. ... Testimony by Mr. Schoch and former employee Ernest Smith regarding their past arrests and plea arrangements was properly allowed because it tends to show the intent and plan on the part of defendant Cinema Blue to engage in a conspiracy to disseminate obscenity.

Section 8C-1 permits evidence of prior assaults on the same victim to show motive when the incidents are sufficiently similar and close in time and their probative value outweighs their prejudicial effect.

State v. Lofton · filed 2008-10-21

Defendant has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence of defendant’s prior assaults against Ms. Downs because any prejudicial effect of the evidence of defendant’s prior assaults against Ms. Downs are outweighed by their probative value in establishing defendant’s motive in assaulting Ms. Downs. We conclude that Ms. Downs’ testimony regarding prior violent incidents by defendant was properly admitted, and this argument is overruled.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it is relevant to motive rather than offered solely to show criminal propensity.

State v. Chappelle · filed 2008-10-21Rule 404(b)

A defendant’s motive to commit a crime is clearly of consequence to his guilt or innocence. ... We hold that Rule 404(b) did not require its exclusion as evidence probative only of defendant’s propensity to commit crimes.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior shooting when its similarity and temporal proximity make it probative of the defendant's motive.

State v. Nash · filed 2008-11-04Rule 404(b)

We hold that the testimony of Malloy regarding the shooting on 29 September 2005 is sufficiently similar and close in temporal proximity to the shooting on 15 November 2005 to be probative on the issue of defendant's motive to commit the crime charged. The admission of Malloy's testimony did not run afoul of Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior domestic violence against the victim to show lack of consent and the defendant’s motive and intent when the evidence has relevance beyond propensity.

State v. MAYSONET · filed 2008-12-16Rule 404(b)

The trial court properly admitted the evidence of prior acts of domestic violence between Defendant and the victim to show absence of consent by the victim and the motive and intent of Defendant.

Rule 404(b) does not exclude evidence of other stolen items when it shows possession of stolen property rather than a propensity to steal.

State v. Patterson · filed 2009-01-06Rule 404(b)

We do not find a violation of Rule 404(b) as the evidence presented only tended to show that defendant possessed stolen items, not that he was acting in conformity with a propensity to steal.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act when it tends to show intent to conceal alleged sexual abuse.

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

Bacon's testimony about the "whooping" incident therefore tended to establish defendant's intent to conceal the alleged sexual abuse. The trial court properly admitted this testimony pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior threats when it explains the victim's fear and conduct and helps tell the story of the crime, rather than proving the defendant's violent character.

State v. Helms · filed 2009-06-16Rule 404(b)

This testimony was not offered for the purpose of proving that defendant acted in conformity with a violent disposition. Instead, the testimony provided context for why Bivens feared defendant and felt the need to "make a sudden move." As such, Bivens' testimony was an integral and natural part of the development of the facts and was necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of another act when it tends to establish a defendant’s intent to conceal alleged sexual abuse.

State v. Streater · filed 2009-07-07Rule 404(b)

Bacon’s testimony about the “whooping” incident therefore tended to establish defendant’s intent to conceal the alleged sexual abuse. The trial court properly admitted this testimony pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b).

Rule 404(b) does not permit evidence of earlier assaults to show motive or intent when the earlier acts lack meaningful similarity to the charged offense.

State v. Ray · filed 2009-07-07Rule 404(b)

Similarly, we conclude that the fact that both L.G. and McPhaul were female does not establish the kind of “similarity” under which evidence may be admitted concerning assaults committed fifteen years prior to the charged offense.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts that helps explain the charged events or shows intent or absence of mistake, subject to Rule 403’s prejudice balance.

State v. Madures · filed 2009-07-07(b)

For the reasons set forth above, we hold that the trial court did not err either by admitting relevant evidence pursuant to North Carolina Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(b) after properly balancing its probative value pursuant to Rule 403.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts for a proper purpose when the acts are sufficiently similar to, and not too remote in time from, the charged offense.

State v. Gaskins · filed 2009-07-21Rule 404(b)

Evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b), and the offense for which the defendant is being tried, must not be too dissimilar to, or excessively remote in time from, each other. ... These two incidents occurred within eight months of each other. Based upon these similarities, we can discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of this evidence.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts for a proper purpose when the incidents are sufficiently similar and close in time and the evidence is not unduly prejudicial.

State v. Rainey · filed 2009-08-04Rule 404(b)

Because the evidence was admitted for a proper purpose, the incident was sufficiently similar and close in time, and the testimony was not unduly prejudicial to the defendant, we find that the trial court did not err in ruling that Green’s 404(b) testimony was admissible.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a prior crime when similarities make it relevant to a purpose such as motive or method beyond showing propensity.

State v. Locklear · filed 2009-08-28Rule 404(b)

Although defendant argues the murders are temporally and factually distinct from one another, the trial court's findings indicate significant similarities between the deaths of the victim and Wheeler. ... We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the Wheeler murder.

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

State v. Downey · filed 2009-10-20Rule 404(b)

Thus, based on the evidence presented, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting H.C.'s testimony pursuant to Rule 404(b), as there were sufficient similarities between the minors' allegations, and the acts testified to allegedly took place in close temporal proximity.

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

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

Because Ms. Strach’s testimony was probative of a fact other than the character of the defendant, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts when it is relevant to the defendant's intent rather than merely to a propensity for violence.

State v. Revels · filed 2010-01-19Rule 404(b)

As a result, given that the evidence that Defendant threw a rock through the window of Ms. McCauley's apartment in July 2007 was relevant to issues other than Defendant's propensity to engage in violent conduct and given the centrality of the "intent to terrorize" issue to the matters in dispute between the parties at trial and on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not err by determining that this evidence was admissible pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the risk that its admission would be unduly prejudicial.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other acts when it is relevant to motive or state of mind rather than merely showing a propensity to commit the charged crime.

State v. Reich · filed 2010-02-02Rule 404(b)

In the instant case, given the nature of the longstanding dispute between defendant and his neighbors, evidence of the explosives was relevant to defendant's state of mind and to show his motive and malice toward Kay. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404 (2007).

Section 8C-1 permits evidence of another robbery to prove a common plan or identity when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Mohamed · filed 2010-07-20Rule 404(b); Rule 403

The evidence in question was, for that reason, admissible under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b), since it tends to prove both a common plan or scheme on the part of Defendant involving both robberies and the Defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the robbery for which he was being tried. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to exclude the evidence relating to the other robbery pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403.

Rules 404(b) and 403 permit evidence of a similar, recent act for a purpose other than showing propensity when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

State v. Woodard · filed 2011-04-05Rule 404(b); Rule 403

In the present case, the evidence that defendant broke into a pharmacy in Mitchell County is sufficiently similar to the break-in at Crossnore Drugstore. The incidents were only a few days apart and both involved defendant, Mr. Hensley, and Mr. McDaniel. Both events took place around 1:00 a.m. for the purpose of stealing narcotics. Furthermore, the trial court specifically instructed the jury to only consider the testimony for the limited purpose of “motive, plan, opportunity, intent, preparation, knowledge and/or identity with regard to the offenses charged here.” The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other misconduct to show a common scheme or plan, identity, lack of mistake, motive, or intent when the acts are sufficiently similar.

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

This other crimes evidence was introduced for the purpose of showing “common scheme or plan, identity, lack of mistake, motive and intent.” The trial court properly allowed the evidence which was substantially similar to the acts of defendant toward the victim in the instant case and which supported the purposes for which it was introduced.

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar subsequent acts to show a common plan or scheme, subject to the risk of unfair prejudice.

State v. Twitty · filed 2011-05-17Rule 404(b)

Here, the trial court admitted evidence, over Defendant’s objection, that Defendant told a similar false story and asked for money at numerous churches for the purpose of showing a common plan or scheme, a purpose permitted under Rule 404(b). As noted above, evidence of subsequent bad acts is treated no differently than evidence of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b). The subsequent acts here were highly similar and occurred within a month of the offense for which Defendant was charged, indicating that the evidence was highly probative. We thus conclude that the evidence was properly admitted, and we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendant.

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

State v. BECKELHEIMER · filed 2011-04-19Rule 404(b)

Both similarity and temporal proximity are required for the evidence to be admissible under Rule 404(b) as “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.”

Rule 404(b) permits evidence of a defendant's possession of incestuous pornography when it is relevant to motive or intent.

State v. Brown · filed 2011-05-03Rule 404(b)

Accordingly, the relevance of the evidence of Brown's possession of Family Letters is not governed by this Court's prior decisions holding as inadmissible evidence of a defendant's possession of general pornography, and we conclude that the trial court correctly admitted evidence of Brown's possession of Family Letters as relevant evidence showing both Brown's motive and intent in committing the acts underlying the charged offenses, two proper purposes for such evidence under Rule 404(b).

Rule 412 excludes evidence of a complainant’s actual sexual history but does not bar evidence of prior false accusations.

State v. McCarroll · filed 1993-04-06Rule 412

However, the legislature intended to exclude only the actual sexual history of the complainant and not prior false accusations.

Rule 412 permits a victim to testify voluntarily that she had no sexual involvement with anyone else to corroborate her account and link a pregnancy to the defendant.

State v. Stanton · filed 1987-03-04Rule 412

Defendant cites no authority contrary to either Rule 412 or its predecessor statute, N.C.G.S. § 8-58.6, to prohibit a victim from willingly testifying as to the lack of sexual involvement for purposes of corroboration, and we decline to so construe it.

Rule 412(b) bars cross-examination about a complainant’s virginity when none of its four exceptions applies.

State v. Autry · filed 1988-02-03Rule 412(b)

Here, the victim’s virginity or lack thereof does not fall within any of the four exceptions and is therefore an area prohibited from cross-examination by Rule 412.

Rule 412 permits exclusion of exploratory questions about a complainant’s sexual behavior when the defendant offers no evidence and requests no in camera hearing.

State v. Degree · filed 1988-05-05Rule 412(b), (d)

Had defendant possessed evidence of the victim’s sexual behavior which he contended was relevant for impeachment purposes, he could have requested an in camera hearing to determine its relevancy and admissibility. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 412(d) (1986). He made no such request, however, and absent such request exclusion of his merely expeditionary questions accords with the letter and the purpose of the rape shield statute.

Rule 412(b) does not permit questioning a complainant about an alleged violent incident with her boyfriend that was unrelated to sexual activity.

State v. Watkins · filed 1988-04-19Rule 412(b)

In the case at bar, defense counsel attempted to question Ms. Myers about an alleged violent incident with her boyfriend, which Ms. Myers testified was unrelated to any sexual activity. These questions were not relevant or admissible under Rule 412(b), and we hold that the trial court properly limited this line of questioning.

Rule 412 generally makes a complainant’s sexual behavior irrelevant in a prosecution unless one of four narrow exceptions applies.

State v. Herring · filed 1988-07-28

The Rape Shield Statute provides that “the sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution” except in four very narrow situations. The evidence in question in the present case did not fall within any of those exceptions and was properly excluded.

Rule 412 excludes evidence of a complainant’s sexual behavior when the offered purpose falls outside its exceptions.

State v. Alverson · filed 1988-10-18

In this case, defendant wanted cross-examination of the prosecuting witness because he speculated she was motivated to accuse him of rape because she was pregnant by her boyfriend. This does not fall under an exception to Rule 412, and therefore is not relevant. The trial court was correct when it did not allow cross-examination of the prosecuting witness.

Rule 412(b)(2) permits evidence of specific instances of a complainant’s sexual behavior offered to show that the defendant did not commit the charged act, including behavior that could explain the complainant’s physical condition.

State v. Wright · filed 1990-06-05Rule 412(b)(2)

The excluded evidence was “evidence of specific incidences of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant” and therefore was relevant evidence. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 412(b)(2).

Rule 412(b)(1) permits evidence of prior sexual activity between the complainant and defendant when the defendant establishes a basis for admissibility and the court finds it relevant.

State v. Jenkins · filed 1994-07-19Rule 412(b)(1)

Although evidence of prior sexual activity may be admissible pursuant to the exception set forth in Rule 412(b)(1), the defendant must show the basis of admissibility, and the trial court must determine the relevance of the proffered evidence.

Rule 412 excludes evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual abuse offered solely to suggest that the complainant had enough sexual knowledge to fabricate an allegation, absent an opening of the door.

State v. Bass · filed 1996-01-02

Accordingly, we conclude that, absent some “opening of the door,” evidence of prior abuse such as we have here is inadmissible under Rule 412.

Rule 412 does not govern evidence that a rape complainant made and later withdrew a prior rape allegation, because the allegation is not evidence of past sexual behavior.

State v. Ginyard · filed 1996-03-19Rule 412

The complainant's statements concerning an alleged rape and the fact that she eventually dropped the allegations of rape were not evidence of her past sexual behavior and the evidence regarding that incident was not governed by Rule 412.

Rule 412(b)(2) does not admit evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual behavior with another child merely to suggest the complainant knew enough about sexual acts to fabricate an accusation.

State v. Trogden · filed 1999-09-21Rule 412(b)(2)

Defendant sought to admit T’s statements referencing M’s past sexual behavior under Rule 412(b)(2) at trial. This'is not the type of evidence offered for the purpose of showing that the acts charged were not committed by defendant under Rule 412(b)(2).

Rule 412 permits evidence of prior sexual acts to show that someone other than the defendant caused the physical evidence of the charged offense.

Love v. Freeman · filed 1999-08-30Rule 412

Under Rule 412, evidence of prior sexual acts is admissible to show that the acts charged were not committed by the defendant -- i.e., to offer an alternative explanation for the physical evidence.

Rule 412 concerns a complainant’s sexual activity and does not exclude evidence of mere exposure to nudity, though that evidence may still be excluded as irrelevant.

State v. Yearwood · filed 2001-12-18Rule 412

In addition, although the evidence in the agency records was not excluded by North Carolina Rule of Evidence 412, which is concerned with the sexual activity of the complainant, the trial court nevertheless did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit defendant from introducing such evidence because there is no indication in the record that this evidence was relevant to C.B.’s credibility.

Rule 412(b) excludes evidence of a complainant’s sexual relationship with another person when offered to suggest a motive to falsely accuse the defendant of rape.

State v. Harrell · filed 2005-01-18Rule 412(b)

Defendant argues that evidence of a sexual relationship between B.E. and Livengood should be admissible because the relationship may have motivated B.E. to falsely accuse him of rape. This argument does not fall under an exception to Rule 412, and therefore, the evidence is irrelevant.

Rule 412(b)(2) permits evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual encounter when it could show that someone else caused injuries offered to prove rape.

State v. Harris · filed 2004-10-05Rule 412(b)(2)

In the instant case, we find the facts of Fortney distinguishable, and the dicta interpreting Rule 412(b)(2), then N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8-58.6(b)(2), applicable. ... Therefore, we reverse on this issue, and grant a new trial in which the evidence of the prior sexual encounter on the day of the alleged rape should be admitted.

Rule 412(a) covers a complainant's statement suggesting prior sexual activity, even when the evidence is the statement itself.

State v. Brodie · filed 2005-06-21Rule 412(a)

In this case, by contrast, the statement suggested that Ms. Hamilton had previously engaged in sex in front of her child. It, therefore, referred to "sexual activity of the complainant other than the sexual act which is at issue in the indictment on trial," Rule 412(a), and fell within the scope of the protection of the rule.

Rule 412 bars cross-examination about a complainant’s prior sexual activity when the proposed testimony falls outside its four exceptions; an attempt to attack credibility alone does not qualify.

State v. Dorton · filed 2005-08-16Rule 412

Defendant’s arguments fail to bring the sought testimony within any of the four exceptions to the Rape Shield Statute and appears to be directly in conflict with our Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Autry, 321 N.C. 392, 398, 364 S.E.2d 341, 345 (1988) (noting that, because a “victim’s virginity or lack thereof does not fall within any of the four exceptions [,]” it is an area “prohibited from cross-examination by Rule 412[,]” and the rule does not violate a defendant’s right to confront an adverse witness).

Rule 412 excludes evidence of a complainant’s prior consensual sexual activity when it does not help show that someone other than the defendant committed the charged act.

State v. Harris · filed 2005-12-16Rule 412(b)(2)

On this record, given the purpose of the rape shield statute, we hold that evidence of the victim’s consensual attempt at sexual intercourse with her boyfriend is not probative on the issue of whether she consented to sexual activity with defendant, and the trial court properly excluded it pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 412.

Rule 412(d) requires a party seeking to introduce a rape complainant’s past sexual activity to offer proof that the activity occurred and is relevant.

State v. Hammett · filed 2007-03-20Rule 412(d)

Rule 412(d) contemplates that the party desiring to introduce evidence of a rape complainant’s past sexual activity must offer some proof as to both the existence of such activities and the relevancy thereof. ... We conclude that the trial court did not err by disallowing defendant’s request to question C.H. regarding her relationship with her boyfriend.

Rule 412 excludes a complainant's sexually transmitted disease history when it concerns other sexual activity and does not bear on consent to the charged act.

State v. McCray · filed 2007-10-02Rule 412(b)

On this record, given the purpose of the rape shield statute, we hold that evidence of the victim's medical history of sexually transmitted diseases is not probative on the issue of whether she consented to sexual activity with defendant, and the trial court properly excluded it pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 412.

Rule 412(b)(3)’s exception for a distinctive pattern of prior sexual behavior does not apply when the defendant denies a sexual encounter with the complainant and does not claim consent.

State v. Harris · filed 2008-03-04Rule 412(b)(3)

Rule 412(b)(3) provides that such evidence is only relevant on the issue of consent between a complainant and a defendant. Defendant has never argued that he had a consensual sexual encounter with K.L. on 6 November 2005; to the contrary, he has repeatedly denied having such an encounter, consensual or otherwise. Thus, this exception to the rape shield does not apply, rendering the contested evidence irrelevant under Rule 412(b).

Rule 412 may be used in civil cases to exclude irrelevant evidence of a person's prior sexual behavior.

In Re KW · filed 2008-09-16Rule 412

Therefore, we find that it is permissible for a trial judge in a civil case to use Rule 412 as a basis for excluding irrelevant evidence about a plaintiff's prior sexual behavior.

Rule 412(d) requires a defendant to offer proof of a complainant’s prior sexual activity and its relevance before introducing that evidence.

State v. Cook · filed 2009-02-03Rule 412(d)

Thus, as in Black, the only evidence presented regarding the alleged sexual activity with C.T. was Helen’s denial. Under Black, therefore, the trial court properly excluded C.T.’s testimony at trial.

Rule 412(b)(2) does not allow evidence of prior sexual abuse as an alternative explanation for a complainant’s vaginal injury without evidence that the earlier abuse involved that area.

State v. Yaw Osei Adu · filed 2009-02-03Rule 412(b)(2)

Thus, S.A.’s abuse by her grandfather would not have provided an alternative explanation for the notching on S.A.’s vaginal area and was properly excluded pursuant to Rule 412.

Rule 412(b)(2) permits evidence of a complainant’s sexual abuse by another person when it offers an alternative explanation for medical findings.

State v. Spann · filed 2009-09-01(b)(2)

As in Ollis, we agree with Defendant that the evidence should have been admitted because evidence regarding the sexual abuse of BW by another man, if admitted, "would have provided an alternative explanation for the medical evidence presented . . . and falls within exception (b)(2) of Rule 412." Id. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence.

Rule 412(b)(2) requires specific instances of the complainant’s sexual behavior to support a claim that someone other than the defendant committed the charged act.

State v. Edmonds · filed 2011-06-21(b)(2)

Though defendant’s apparent theory of the defendant’s nephew “or someone else” having committed the crime would most closely align with the second exception, as there are no “specific instances of sexual behavior” to which defendant points, we must conclude that it does not fit therein.

Rule 412(b)(2) excludes evidence of a complainant’s other sexual relations when it does not tend to show that the defendant did not commit the charged acts.

State v. Khouri · filed 2011-08-16Rule 412(b)(2)

Introducing evidence that Tina had sexual relations with another man would not have shown that the alleged acts were not committed by defendant when evidence of Tina’s sexual relations with her boyfriend had already been admitted. Additional evidence would have only unnecessarily humiliated and embarrassed Tina while having little probative value.

Rule 412(b) does not automatically exclude evidence of a complainant's other sexual behavior offered to show a motive to falsely accuse; the court must consider its relevance and weigh its probative value against prejudice.

State v. Martin · filed 2015-06-16Rule 412(b)

The trial court erred by concluding that the evidence was inadmissible per se because it did not fall within one of the four categories in the Rape Shield Statute. Here, the trial court should have looked beyond the four categories to determine whether the evidence was, in fact, relevant to show Katie's motive to falsely accuse Defendant and, if so, conducted a balancing test of the probative and prejudicial value of the evidence under Rule 403 or was otherwise inadmissible on some other basis (e.g., hearsay).

Rule 412 does not bar evidence that a child complainant watched pornography, without more, because viewing it is not sexual activity.

State v. Rorie · filed 2015-08-18Rule 412

Considering Guthrie and Mason, we now hold the evidence that A.P. was discovered watching a pornographic video, without anything more, is not evidence of sexual activity barred by the Rape Shield Statute.

Rule 412 excludes evidence of a complainant’s unrelated past sexual activity when it has no substantive connection to the alleged offense or a motive to fabricate.

State v. Mbaya · filed 2016-09-20Rule 412(a)

The trial court correctly excluded the evidence that A.B. had previously engaged in unrelated sexual activity and was punished by her parents under the Rape Shield Statute.

Rule 412 permits a court to exclude a complainant’s sexual history after finding it irrelevant, without balancing its probative value against prejudice.

State v. Mendoza · filed 2016-12-06Rule 412(d)

Having found the evidence irrelevant, the trial court was not required under Martin to proceed to a balancing test of the probative and prejudicial value of the evidence. Pursuant to the “great deference” accorded to a trial court’s determinations of relevancy under Rule 412, and in light of Ms. Cobb’s repeated statements that G.J.’s sexual history had no bearing whatsoever on her PTSD diagnosis, we conclude the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence as irrelevant.

Rule 412 covers evidence of a complainant’s STD, but subsection (b)(2) does not admit it merely to suggest that someone else had sexual contact with the complainant.

State v. Jacobs · filed 2017-03-21(b)(2)

Here, we hold the presence of an STD, by contrast, denotes sexual behavior because an STD is commonly associated with sexual activity, sexual intercourse, and is accompanied with the same type of stigma that Rule 412 was designed to prohibit. ... In this case, by contrast, defendant offers no such alternative explanation or specific act to prove that any sexual act committed was by someone other than him. Rather, defendant offers evidence of Betty’s STD, and the nonexistence of an STD for himself, to raise speculation and insinuate that Betty must have been sexually active with someone else. Therefore, we find that the presence of an STD is not relevant under Rule 412(b)(2) and was properly excluded from the evidence admitted at trial.

Rule 412 requires a party seeking to introduce a complainant’s past sexual behavior to request a relevance determination and establish its admissibility.

State v. Parlier · filed 2017-03-07(d)

Here, Defendant made no application to the court for a determination of the relevance of the sexual behavior about which Defendant wished to question Cindy. Consequently, the trial court did not conduct an in camera hearing on the issue.

Rule 412(b) excludes evidence of a complainant’s other sexual behavior unless it falls within a listed exception.

State v. Barbour · filed 2018-02-20Rule 412(b)

On appeal, defendant does not identify any provision of Rule 412 that would apply to Rachel's statements that when she was around five years old she had been sexually abused by Miguel. We conclude that defendant's proposed cross-examination does not fall within any of the exceptions in Rule 412(b).

Rule 412(b)(2) permits evidence of a complainant’s sexually transmitted diseases when it supports an inference that the defendant did not commit the charged acts.

State v. Jacobs · filed 2018-04-06(b)(2)

Because we hold that defendant’s offer of proof indicated that the STD evidence in this case fell within the Rule 412(b)(2) exception, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred by holding that there was no error in the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence.

Rule 412(b)(3) governs the admission of evidence bearing on consent or a reasonable belief in consent; it does not create a defense to rape.

State v. Yelverton · filed 2020-11-17Rule 412(b)(3)

Ginyard is inapposite not only on its facts, but because Rule 412 concerns the admissibility of evidence at trial, not a substantive defense.

Rule 412(a) includes a complainant’s prior nonconsensual sexual activity within the definition of sexual behavior, which Rule 412 generally excludes from evidence.

State v. Washington · filed 2024-05-23(a)

In sum, the language of Rule 412 is clear that, generally, all evidence of a complainant’s sexual behavior, other than the sexual act at issue, is irrelevant regardless of whether that sexual behavior was consensual or nonconsensual.

Rule 801(d)(B) allows a person’s silence to adopt another person’s statement when the person heard it, could respond, and would naturally deny it if it were untrue.

State v. Williams · filed 1993-06-04Rule 801(d)(B)

Rule 801(d)(B) permits an exception to the hearsay rule for admissions of a party, which include “a statement of which he has manifested his adoption or belief in its truth.” ... No such error occurred here, for the admissibility of Carver’s statement was supported by the implied admission exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 801(d)(E) permits a conspirator’s statements against a coconspirator when independent evidence establishes a prima facie conspiracy and the statements were made during and in furtherance of it.

State v. Mahaley · filed 1992-11-19Rule 801(d)(E)

There was substantial evidence that the defendant had entered a conspiracy to kill her husband and that Harris’ statements to Taylor were in furtherance of and during the conspiracy. Therefore, the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of those statements of Harris through the testimony of Taylor.

Rule 801(d)(B) permits an implied admission when a party hears and understands an accusation and responds in a way that indicates acquiescence; physical presence is unnecessary.

State v. Thompson · filed 1992-09-04Rule 801(d)(B)

We agree with the State that the above portion of the telephone conversations between Sanchez and defendant constitutes an implied admission as contemplated by Rule 801(d)(B).

Rule 801(a) does not treat a police composite picture prepared from a witness's directions as a statement, so the hearsay rule does not bar its admission.

State v. Patterson · filed 1992-09-04Rule 801(a)

However, we are persuaded by the reasoning of cases such as Moskowitz and Packard and conclude that a composite picture of a perpetrator prepared by police pursuant to the directions of a witness to a crime does not constitute a "statement" under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 801(a). Such a composite picture is the functional equivalent of a photograph in that it merely reflects the perpetrator's likeness, albeit as recorded by the witness's eyes rather than the witness's camera. No assertion or statement is involved. Therefore, a composite picture is not "hearsay" as defined by Rule 801(c), and Rule 802 does not apply to bar the admission of a composite picture into evidence.

Rule 801(d)(A) permits a party’s own statement to be admitted when offered against that party.

State v. Lang · filed 1992-07-07Rule 801(d)(A)

Defendant next argues the affidavit was inadmissible hearsay. This is incorrect. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(A) (1990) permits a statement if it is offered against a party and is that party’s own statement. The Rule clearly applies in this case.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a prior statement offered to corroborate a witness’s testimony, rather than to prove its truth, as hearsay.

State v. Joyce · filed 1991-12-03Rule 801(c)

Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c) (1988). In the present case, the prior statements in question were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; rather, they were offered to bolster the testimony which Linda Moore gave on the stand.

Rule 801(d)(A) permits a party’s own statement to be admitted when offered against that party.

Boone Lumber, Inc. v. Sigmon · filed 1991-08-20Rule 801(d)(A)

G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801(d) provides that “[a] statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party and it is (A) his own statement, in either his individual or a representative capacity.” While the question may have called for an answer that embraced the ultimate issue, the answer actually given was only a recital of what defendant Andy Sigmon had told the witness.

Rule 801 permits an out-of-court statement to be used to explain a witness’s conduct when it is not offered to prove the truth of an assertion.

State v. Roper · filed 1991-04-03Rule 801

An out-of-court assertion offered for any relevant purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted may be admissible. ... We hold that the trial court properly instructed the jury that the testimony could be used for the limited purpose of explaining why the witness called the Sheriff’s Department a second time and not for the purpose of establishing the truth of any implied assertion made by Judy Townsend.