N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

An agent’s statement about a matter within the scope of the agency, made during the relationship, is admissible as a party-opponent admission.

Kremer v. Food Lion, Inc. · filed 1991-03-19Rule 801(d)(0)

However, the manager’s statements are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule for admissions by a party opponent which include “statements by [a party’s] agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment made during the existence of his relationship.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(0) (1988).

Rule 801(d)(E) permits a co-conspirator’s statement when independent evidence is sufficient to allow a jury to find a conspiracy.

State v. Cotton · filed 1991-03-05Rule 801(d)(E)

When attempting to rely on the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, the State’s burden is to produce evidence independent of the statements themselves sufficient to permit the jury to find the existence of a conspiracy. ... We hold that this evidence is sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that Morrow and defendant came to an agreement to sell cocaine to Todd, and acted on it. The statement was properly admitted.

Rules 801(c) and 802 exclude an out-of-court statement offered for its truth unless a hearsay exception applies.

State v. Petty · filed 1990-10-30Rule 801(c), Rule 802

From a review of the transcript we conclude that the woman’s statements are inadmissible hearsay as they were offered for the truth of the matter asserted, namely, that she did not know the defendant and had not been with him all night, and further, they do not fall within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 802 permits hearsay exceptions established by statute as well as by the Rules of Evidence.

State v. Smith · filed 1984-12-04

Our recently enacted Rules of Evidence, provide that "[h]earsay is not admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules." (Emphasis added.) N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 802. The legislature therein codified its own inherent right to enact, under appropriate circumstances, statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Rule 801(d)(E) does not admit a coconspirator’s statement made after the conspiracy ended.

State v. Gary · filed 1985-12-03Rule 801(d)(E)

Statements made prior to or subsequent to the conspiracy are not admissible under this exception. ... The conspiracy shown by the evidence had long since ended; nothing in Cox’ and Wilkins’ relationship suggested that this later event was connected to the first transaction. No other evidence of Wilkins’ relationship, if any, with defendant came before the jury. On this record, we think that the error was prejudicial and requires a new trial.

Under Rules 801(a) and 802, conduct that asserts a fact is inadmissible hearsay when testimony about it is offered to prove that fact.

State v. Satterfield · filed 1986-02-18Rule 801(a); Rule 802

Similar to the situation in Suits, this conduct by the defendant's father was the equivalent of a statement that "This drawer is where I kept the knife, and it is gone." The conduct was a "statement" within the meaning of Rule 801(a). The State offered the evidence to prove the existence of a knife and its use by the defendant as testified by Mrs. Dill. Therefore, the testimony regarding the defendant's father's conduct was hearsay and inadmissible under Rule 802.

Rule 801(c) excludes a statement from hearsay when it is offered to show that the statement was made, rather than to prove its truth.

State v. Riddle · filed 1986-03-05Rule 801(c)

Collins’ testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Lisa had asked Pamela to say that she had fabricated the incident), but was offered merely to prove that Pamela had made a statement to this effect to Collins. The testimony was therefore not objectionable on hearsay grounds.

Rule 801(d) permits a witness to testify to a defendant’s own statements made directly to that witness when offered against the defendant.

State v. Kuplen · filed 1986-05-06(d)

We further hold that objection to the witness’s testimony on the ground that it was hearsay likewise is without merit, for the witness, after the defendant’s objection was made at trial, clearly stated that the statements and threats were made by the defendant to the witness, not, as suggested in the defendant’s brief, by the defendant to someone else who related the statements to the witness. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d).

Rule 801(d)(E) permits coconspirator statements made during a conspiracy to reassure a buyer that the planned transaction will proceed.

State v. Collins · filed 1986-06-17Rule 801(d)(E)

Bowers’ statements were made to reassure Stubbs that Lipford would return and that the conspiracy would achieve its ends. His statements of reassurance were clearly in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Rule 801 treats nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion as a statement, but it is hearsay only when offered to prove the assertion’s truth.

State v. Parker · filed 1986-06-17Rule 801(a), (c)

Nonverbal conduct can be a “statement” within the meaning of the rule when the conduct is “intended by [the declarant] as an assertion.” ... In order for the statements to be excluded as hearsay, they must be offered for the truth of the matter asserted by the statements. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801(c). ... Thus, his testimony was only offered to show that he obtained the jewelry from defendant’s wife at his apartment.

Rule 801 permits a statement to be admitted to show that it was made, rather than to prove that its contents are true.

Southern Watch Supply Co. v. Regal Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. · filed 1986-07-15Rule 801

It was received, so the court instructed the jury, “for the limited purpose of simply showing that a report was made,” which is an appropriate purpose under the law, not forbidden by the hearsay rule.

Rule 801(c) excludes a statement from hearsay when it is offered to explain a witness’s conduct rather than to prove what the statement asserts.

State v. Williams · filed 1986-12-16Rule 801(c)

The statement Mr. Walston testified that he heard over the phone was not hearsay. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801(c) provides that “ ‘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.”

Rule 801(c) permits a statement offered to explain a person’s conduct rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Hall v. Coplon · filed 1987-05-05Rule 801(c)

Hearsay is defined as “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.” G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801(c). If the statement is offered for any other purpose, it is admissible. ... In the present case, the evidence was not offered as proof of the matters asserted. The testimony helped to explain plaintiffs conduct during and after the break-in and was admissible for that purpose. Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony.

Rule 801(d) permits an alleged agent’s statements to be used against a principal when other evidence establishes the agency and the statements fall within the agent’s actual or apparent authority.

Johnson v. Hunnicutt · filed 1987-07-21(d)(C)-(D)

Dailey found the evidence of agency admissible when “(1) the fact of agency appears from other evidence and (2) the statements were within the agent’s actual or apparent authority.” ... There was no evidence from any source that the three other defendants had authorized Ben Hunni-cutt to act as their agent. Therefore, Ben Hunnicutt’s statements could bind only him and Cassie Mae Hunnicutt.

Rule 801(d) permits a county’s property tax valuation to be admitted against the county as a party-opponent admission in an eminent domain proceeding.

Craven County v. Hall · filed 1987-10-06Rule 801(d)

Therefore, we hold that evidence of real property valuations made by the county for ad va-lorem tax purposes are admissible against the county in an eminent domain proceeding as an admission of a party opponent.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a statement as hearsay when it is offered to explain why an officer acted rather than to prove the statement true.

State v. Holden · filed 1987-12-02Rule 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.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c). This statement was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that the victim was shot, but to explain why Deputy Jernigan procured a search warrant. This is not hearsay.

Rule 801(c) defines hearsay to include statements offered to prove the truth of what they assert.

BLACK HORSE RUN PROP. OWNERS ASSOCIATION-RALEIGH, INC. v. Kaleel · filed 1987-12-15Rule 801(c)

The statements were offered by appellants “in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted” and are, therefore, inadmissible as hearsay. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801(c).

Rule 801(d)(E) permits a coconspirator’s statement reassuring others that the planned transaction will occur to be admitted as a statement in furtherance of the conspiracy.

State v. Phillips · filed 1988-02-02Rule 801(d)(E)

Statements made in reassurance that the transaction which is the subject of the conspiracy will indeed occur are made in furtherance of the conspiracy. ... Stephen Travis’s statement “we are going to do this” involves such reassurance. The trial court did not err in admitting the statement.

Rule 801(a) excludes a name and address on mailed material from hearsay when the sender did not intend them as an assertion.

State v. Peek · filed 1988-03-01Rule 801(a)

A “statement” is either (1) an oral or written assertion, or (2) non-verbal conduct which is intended as an assertion. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801(a). Defendant’s name and address, written or printed on an envelope or its contents, is neither a written assertion nor conduct which is intended as an assertion and, therefore, is not hearsay evidence.

Rule 801(c) does not treat evidence offered to corroborate testimony, rather than prove the truth of what it asserts, as hearsay.

State v. Locklear · filed 1988-06-02Rule 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.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c) (1986). The article and photograph were not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted or depicted therein, but to corroborate certain testimony of the witness Smith. They thus were not hearsay.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a statement as hearsay when it is offered to explain a listener’s conduct rather than to prove the truth of what the speaker asserted.

State v. Hunt · filed 1988-11-03Rule 801(c)

The above quoted colloquy was not to prove that Dottie Ransom insured Jackie Ransom’s life so that she could have him killed but was to prove why Rogers Locklear contacted A. R. Barnes and later Elwell Barnes and Hunt to have Jackie Ransom killed. The jury did not have to judge the credibility of Dottie Ransom as to whether she intended to have Jackie Ransom killed. It had to judge the credibility of Rogers Locklear to determine why he conspired with the three defendants to kill Jackie Ransom. This testimony was not hearsay and was properly admitted.

Statements offered to show a defendant’s knowledge or motive, rather than to prove their truth, are not hearsay under Rules 801(c) and 802.

State v. Quick · filed 1989-01-04Rules 801(c) and 802

The letter and the testimony of the victim’s grandmother were offered for the purpose of showing that defendant’s motive for killing the victim was because she wished to discontinue their relationship. The cross-examination of defendant regarding the contents of the letter was designed to show that he knew its contents prior to the homicide. The statements were relevant for the purposes for which they were admitted and their admission into evidence did not violate Rule 802.

Rule 801(c) permits an out-of-court statement offered to show ill will and motive rather than to prove the truth of what it asserts.

State v. Greene · filed 1989-02-09Rule 801(c)

The testimony in question was probative of something other than the truth of the matter asserted. It tended to show that the victim intended to disinherit defendant and to show ill will between defendant and the victim. It thus supported the State’s theory concerning defendant’s motive for murdering his father, and it was therefore admissible for a nonhearsay purpose.

Rule 801(d)(B) permits a jury to treat a defendant’s conduct as adopting another person’s statement when the conduct manifests belief in its truth.

State v. Hunt · filed 1989-07-26Rule 801(d)(B)

Therefore, the jury could have reasonably found that the defendant’s affirmative actions amounted to conduct manifesting his adoption of West’s statements or his belief in their truthfulness.

Section 8C-1 excludes out-of-court opinions offered for their truth as hearsay; Rule 701 does not permit a witness to repeat another person's opinion.

State v. Petersilie · filed 1993-07-30Rules 701, 801(c), 802

We conclude these statements were admitted for the truth of what was said; therefore, they were inadmissible hearsay. ... Because neither witness was testifying as to their own opinion, Rule 701 is inapplicable.

Rule 801(d)(E) permits a coconspirator’s statement only if it was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

State v. Marlow · filed 1993-07-30(d)(E)

An exception to the hearsay rule is that a statement by one conspirator made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against his coconspirators. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(E) (1988). ... These statements were neither made during the conspiracy nor in furtherance of it, and therefore do not fall within the coconspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, the admission of these statements was error.

Rule 801(d)(E) permits admission of a coconspirator’s statement when independent evidence establishes a prima facie conspiracy before the close of the State’s evidence.

State v. Withers · filed 1993-08-03Rule 801(d)(E)

In order for Ms. Jones’ testimony to be admissible pursuant to Rule 801(d)(E), the burden was upon the prosecution to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy through evidence independent of these statements before the close of the State’s evidence. We hold that the State produced sufficient evidence to carry its burden.

Rule 801(c) does not treat an officer’s conclusion about an interview as hearsay when it conveys no assertion by the interviewee.

State v. Oliver · filed 1993-09-10Rule 801(c)

Detective Young’s testimony indicating that Mr. Williams was not able to add anything is not proscribed by the hearsay definition in that the testimony of Detective Young did not repeat, summarize, or intimate any oral or written assertions made by Michael Williams during the investigatory interview. The testimony merely contained the officer’s conclusion based on his interview with Michael Williams. By definition, this testimony is not hearsay.

Rule 801(c) does not exclude testimony about another witness’s statements as hearsay when it is offered to explain an apparent conflict rather than to prove the statements true.

State v. Lee · filed 1994-01-28Rule 801(c)

N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as 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.” In the instant case, any testimony by Dr. Sciara concerning the testimony of Dr. Lindley would not have been offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, such testimony would have been offered for the purpose of explaining that his testimony did not conflict with Dr. Lindley’s testimony. We hold it was error for the trial court to refuse to allow Dr. Sciara to attempt to resolve any of the apparent conflicts between his and Dr. Lindley’s testimony.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a document admitted only for illustrative purposes, rather than to prove the truth of its contents, as hearsay.

Southern Railway Co. v. Biscoe Supply Co. · filed 1994-04-19Rule 801(c)

In the instant case, the document was admitted into evidence only for illustrative purposes, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, the document was not hearsay, and its admission was proper.

Rule 801(c) permits an out-of-court statement offered to show the basis for an officer’s belief rather than to prove the statement’s truth.

Melton v. Hodges · filed 1994-05-17Rule 801(c)

We conclude that Daniels’ testimony regarding the information provided him by Ms. Jewell and Ms. Boeddeker was properly admitted for the purpose of showing the basis for Daniels’ belief that petitioner had committed an implied consent offense.

Rule 801(c) treats statements offered to explain subsequent conduct, rather than to prove their truth, as nonhearsay.

State v. Morston · filed 1994-06-17Rule 801(c)

As the statements were offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather for some other, proper purpose, they were not hearsay and were admissible.

Rule 801(d) permits a defendant’s statement about who initiated a discussion to be admitted as a party admission.

State v. Johnson · filed 1995-04-07Rule 801(d)

We also conclude, however, that this statement was admissible under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d) as a party admission.

Rule 801(c) permits an out-of-court statement to show the difficulty of locating a witness when the statement is not offered for its truth.

State v. Bowie · filed 1995-05-05Rule 801(c)

This testimony by Sgt. Carlson as to what Ernestine Bowie told him was admissible to prove the difficulty of finding Rochelle Bowie. When used for this purpose it was not hearsay. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c) (1992).

Rule 801(c) does not treat a statement as hearsay when it is offered to explain a witness’s delayed report rather than to prove the statement’s truth.

State v. Lamb · filed 1995-11-03Rule 801(c)

The testimony in regard to the threat against Ms. Lorden was not introduced for the truth of the statement. ... It was not hearsay.

Rule 801(d)(C) allows a statement offered against a party when that party authorized the speaker to make a statement on the subject.

State v. McLemore · filed 1996-05-10Rule 801(d)(C)

As to the testimony of Det. Oxner, we hold it was admissible under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(C).

Rule 801(c) excludes statements offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of what they assert from hearsay.

State v. Burrus · filed 1996-07-31Rule 801(c)

We conclude these statements were not hearsay in that they were not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 801(c) treats a third party’s statement offered to prove its truth as hearsay.

State v. Cunningham · filed 1996-09-06Rule 801(c)

The question was designed to elicit testimony as to the statement of a third party to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This was hearsay testimony. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c) (1992). It was not error to exclude this testimony.

Rule 801(d)(E) permits a coconspirator’s statement when it was made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy.

State v. Williams · filed 1996-12-06Rule 801(d)(E)

Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(E), a hearsay statement of a defendant’s coconspirator is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considering the wide latitude allowed the State in proving conspiracy, we conclude that Robinson’s statement was made during the course of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its objectives. Thus, the trial court properly admitted the statement.

A prior statement offered to strengthen a witness’s credibility rather than prove its truth is not hearsay under Rule 801(c).

State v. Coffey · filed 1997-02-10Rule 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.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c) (1986). Detective Shook’s testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but was offered merely to strengthen the credibility of Nelson’s testimony.

Rule 801 does not treat a statement as hearsay when it is offered to explain a person’s conduct rather than to prove the statement’s truth.

State v. Smith · filed 1997-03-04Rule 801(c)

In the instant case, Floyd Baldwin’s testimony does not qualify as hearsay because it was offered to explain the victim’s motivation for going across the street to talk to defendant, not to prove that defendant threatened to kill him.

Out-of-court statements offered to prove their truth are inadmissible hearsay when no statutory exception applies.

Johnson v. Southern Industrial Constructors, Inc. · filed 1997-05-06Rule 801(c); Rule 802

We agree the court received the out of court statements contained in the foregoing letters “to prove the truth of the matter asserted,” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c), and that no statutory exception justified admission of the letters into evidence, see N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 802.

Rule 801(c) does not treat an out-of-court statement as hearsay when it is offered to explain a witness’s later conduct rather than to prove its truth.

State v. Jones · filed 1997-10-03Rule 801(c)

Viewed within this context, it is clear the statements to which defendant assigns error are not hearsay. The evidence was not admitted to prove the truth of any matter asserted within the statements, but rather to explain why Maybin recanted her earlier statements implicating defendant, and later herself, in the murder of Frank Swain.

Rule 801(d)(E) permits a coconspirator’s statement when the State makes a prima facie showing of a conspiracy and the statement was made during and in furtherance of it.

State v. Bonnett · filed 1998-07-09(d)(E)

Further, we find that the statements of codefendant Moore in which the codefendants agreed to “hit this store,” “stick together whatever happenfs],” and to “smoke the old m — f-—,” along with statements made during the robbery and murder, fall well within the hearsay exception for statements made during the course and in furtherance of a conspiracy. Thus, the trial court properly admitted these statements.

Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts; a statement offered for another purpose is not hearsay.

State v. Moore · filed 1998-10-06Rule 801(c)

Hearsay is defined as “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) (1992). A statement which is offered for any purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted is admissible even if it was not made by the declarant while testifying at trial.

Under Rule 801(c), statements offered to show motive rather than to prove their truth are not hearsay.

State v. Davis · filed 1998-10-09Rule 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.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c) (1992). Here, the State never offered Balogh’s or defendant’s statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, the statements were offered to prove defendant’s motive for the crime. Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting Medford’s testimony regarding the conversation between Balogh and defendant at defendant’s dismissal conference.

Rule 801(c) permits an out-of-court statement offered to explain the listener’s subsequent conduct rather than to prove the statement true.

State v. Call · filed 1998-12-31Rule 801(c)

However, out-of-court statements offered for purposes other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not considered hearsay. ... We conclude that Reeves’ testimony was proper nonhearsay evidence and that the trial court did not commit error.

A statement offered to explain an officer’s subsequent conduct, rather than to prove its truth, is not hearsay.

State v. Earhart · filed 1999-07-06Rule 801(c)

The substance of the conversation with Agent Varnell was not inadmissible hearsay because it was admitted for the purpose of explaining Detective Nichols’ subsequent conduct of checking the license plate number and thus not for the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a prior statement offered to bolster trial testimony rather than prove its contents as hearsay.

State v. Gell · filed 2000-02-04Rule 801(c)

However, Morris’ prior statement, which contained this reference to what Conner said, was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to bolster the testimony Morris gave at trial. Therefore, the statement was not hearsay.

Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered to prove its truth; testimony that a witness had information, without recounting a statement, is not hearsay.

State v. Locklear · filed 2000-03-07Rule 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.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c). Here, the witness’ testimony is not hearsay. Deputy Davis merely testified that he did have information that the defendant had committed a crime. The witness did not testify about an out of court statement.

Rule 801(d)(D) admits an agent’s statement against the principal when it concerns a matter within the scope of the agency and was made during that relationship.

Kilgo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2000-07-05Rule 801(d)(D)

Any statement of an agent of a party is admissible into evidence against the principal party if the statement (1) concerns “a matter within the scope of [the] agency,” and (2) is “made during the existence of the [agency] relationship.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(D) (1999). ... Marmer was, thus, an agent of Wal-Mart at the time he entered his comments on the incident report and the entry concerned a matter within the scope of his agency.

Rule 801(c) treats a videotape’s date notation as hearsay when it is offered to prove the date of an event shown on the tape.

State v. Sibley · filed 2000-11-21Rule 801(c)

Here, this videotape contains inadmissible hearsay for which there is no exception to the hearsay rule. We hold that the admission of this videotape bearing the date notation on this record was reversible error.

Rule 801(c) permits a statement offered to explain a listener’s conduct when it is not offered to prove the statement true.

State v. McCord · filed 2000-12-05Rule 801(c)

The State did not offer testimony of Byers’ statement for the truth of the statement; rather, the testimony was offered “to show what Lankford did” based on Byers’ statement. Because evidence of Byers’ statement was offered for this limited purpose, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction regarding this evidence.

Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts; a statement offered for impeachment is outside that definition.

State v. Featherson · filed 2001-07-17Rule 801(c)

Hearsay is defined as “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.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c) (1999). In the instant case, the alleged hearsay evidence was not admitted for its truth. Instead, the evidence was admitted for impeachment.

Rule 801(c) treats an out-of-court statement offered to explain the listener’s subsequent conduct, rather than to prove its truth, as nonhearsay.

State v. Gainey · filed 2002-02-01Rule 801(c)

In the present case, McNeill’s testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain his subsequent actions. Without McNeill’s statement, it would have been difficult for jurors to understand why deputies were staked out in Spring Lake the next morning, waiting for the victim’s car. Accordingly, this testimony was proper nonhearsay evidence, and the trial court did not err in admitting it.

Rules 801 and 802 exclude an officer’s account of a witness’s out-of-court concerns when the witness did not testify about those concerns and the account did not corroborate her testimony.

State v. Evans · filed 2002-04-16Rules 801, 802

However, Baldwin did not testify regarding her concerns or her reluctance to speak with the police. Therefore, this evidence was inadmissible hearsay, and the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objection and in denying his motion to strike.

Section 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(A) permits testimony about a defendant’s own incriminating statement when offered against him.

State v. Williams · filed 2002-06-28Rule 801(d)(A)

These findings of fact plus Medina’s testimony regarding what he heard defendant say lead us to conclude that Medina’s testimony was admissible as an admission by defendant under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(A).

A party’s own statement is admissible when offered against that party.

State v. Wade · filed 2002-12-31Rule 801(d)(A)

Here, defendant’s statement was admissible as an admission by a party-opponent. Therefore, defendant’s argument is without merit.

Rule 801(d)(A) permits a defendant’s own incriminating statement to be admitted against him as a party-opponent admission.

State v. Smith · filed 2003-05-06Rule 801(d)(A)

Thus, his alleged statement that he was driving is incriminating and constitutes an admission. Accordingly, we hold that under Rule 801(d)(A), no error was committed in admitting Officer Player's statement regarding defendant's admission.

Rule 801(d) allows a party’s own statement to be admitted against that party as an exception to the hearsay rule.

State v. Clark · filed 2003-11-18Rule 801(d)

As such, defendant’s statements regarding his age to Detective Currie were admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule as admissions by a party-opponent.

Under Rule 801(c), an out-of-court statement offered to prove another person’s drug use is hearsay and, without an exception, cannot support a finding against that person.

State v. Oaks · filed 2004-04-20Rule 801(c)

Deputy Woods’s testimony at defendant’s guilty plea hearing that “defendant told me at the time him and his wife smoked pot about every other day” is hearsay without exception as it pertains to Elizabeth. “ ‘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, N.C. R. Evid. 801(c) (2003). ... Therefore, we hold that this statement cannot be used to support a conclusion of law that Elizabeth is an unlawful user of controlled substances.

Rule 801(d)(D) allows a defendant to offer a law enforcement officer’s statements against the prosecution when they concern matters within the officer’s employment and were made during that employment.

State v. Villeda · filed 2004-07-20Rule 801(d)(D)

As there is nothing in the plain language of Rule 801(d) to suggest that it does not apply to the prosecution in a criminal case, we adopt the position taken in Barile.

Rule 801(d) permits an out-of-court statement to be admitted when it is offered against the party who made it.

State v. Tirado · filed 2004-08-13Rule 801(d)

An out-of-court statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when it was made by the party against whom it is being offered.

Rule 801(c) excludes statements offered to explain a listener’s subsequent conduct from hearsay because they are not offered for their truth.

State v. Young · filed 2004-10-05Rule 801(c)

Again, we conclude that the challenged testimony from Officer Bollinger was offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain his actions, taken subsequent to Officer Moyer’s statement to him about the interaction between defendant and Robert and the black female, of responding to the scene, visually identifying defendant and Robert, placing Robert under arrest, and seizing incident to the arrest $192.00 in mostly small bills from Robert’s person. We therefore conclude that Officer Bollinger’s testimony on this point does not constitute inadmissible hearsay.

Rule 801(d) permits testimony about a party opponent’s admission, including an official’s denial that he approved a disputed change.

Stilwell v. General Railway Services, Inc. · filed 2004-12-07Rule 801(d)

In fact, the trial court erroneously prohibited the plaintiffs expert from testifying about a conversation he had with the same official where Newfell allegedly denied he had approved the changes. The trial judge excluded the expert’s testimony on the basis that the denial could not form a basis for the expert’s opinion. Nonetheless, the denial of approval could have been allowed as this was an admission of a party opponent.

An out-of-court statement offered for its truth is inadmissible hearsay when it neither corroborates testimony nor falls within a recognized exception.

State v. XANONH · filed 2004-12-07Rule 801(c), Rule 802

We agree with defendant's argument that the State offered this testimony to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Detective Branch's testimony neither corroborated J.M.'s testimony nor falls under any recognized exception within the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a statement offered to explain the listener’s subsequent conduct as hearsay when it is not offered to prove the statement’s truth.

State v. Cardenas · filed 2005-04-05Rule 801(c)

Second, the testimony was not “offered for the truth of the matter asserted.” Rather, it was intended to explain the detectives’ subsequent conduct.

Rule 801(d) admits an opposing party’s agent’s statement about a matter within the scope of the agent’s employment.

Maglione v. Aegis Family Health Centers · filed 2005-01-18Rule 801(d)(D)

We believe that both the hearsay statements of Dr. Huntsinger and Mr. Wooten fall within the hearsay exception of Rule 801(d). These were party admissions made by agents of defendant and concerning the scope of their employment as CEO and director of financial management respectively.

Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as a statement made outside the trial or hearing and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Swift v. Richardson Sports, Ltd. · filed 2005-04-05Rule 801(c)

Pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c) (2003) (emphasis added), 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." ... This statement does not meet the definition of hearsay because it occurred while plaintiff was testifying at the hearing.

A statement offered to explain someone’s subsequent conduct, rather than to prove the statement true, is not hearsay.

State v. Chapman · filed 2005-04-07Rule 801(c)

Further, words of the unidentified caller contained within defendant’s statement to Detective Sinclair are not hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 801(d) permits statements by a party’s agents about matters within their authority to be admitted against the party when independent evidence establishes that authority.

Renfro v. Richardson Sports Ltd. Partners · filed 2005-08-02Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D)

Based upon the Panthers’s general manager’s testimony that the final roster would be determined by the head coach with input from all of the assistant coaches, the personnel department (which includes scouts), and the general manager, and Nelson’s testimony that it was industry practice to rely upon the representations made by scouts and coaches regarding a player’s chances of making a team, the testimony regarding what the coaches and scouts stated regarding the team’s needs and plaintiffs performance was admissible. Indeed, these individuals had authority to discuss the team’s needs and a player’s performance as their opinion would be considered in determining the team’s final roster.

Rule 801(d)(A) permits a party’s statement to be admitted against that party when it is incriminating in light of other evidence.

State v. Al-Bayyinah · filed 2005-08-19Rule 801(d)(A)

In this case the challenged statements made by defendant, when considered in light of other evidence, constitute an admission by a party-opponent and were thus admissible against him.

Rule 801(c) excludes a witness’s own testimony at a hearing from the definition of hearsay.

Swift v. Richardson Sports, Ltd. · filed 2005-09-06Rule 801(c)

This statement does not meet the definition of hearsay because it occurred while plaintiff was testifying at the hearing.

Rule 801(c) treats a statement offered to explain an officer’s subsequent conduct, rather than to prove its truth, as nonhearsay.

State v. Goblet · filed 2005-09-06Rule 801(c)

At no time during Detective Roten’s testimony were any of the pawn shop records admitted into evidence, nor was his testimony regarding the contents of those records used for any purpose other than to show the basis for his contacting the Kill Devil Hills Police. Detective Roten’s testimony regarding the records was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and, accordingly, was not1 hearsay.

Rule 801(c) permits a statement offered to explain a listener’s subsequent conduct rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

State v. Byers · filed 2006-01-03Rule 801(c)

These statements were admissible, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but for purposes of explaining why Williams chose to run (in fear for his life), seek law enforcement assistance before returning to the apartment, and chose not to confront defendant single-handedly.

Rule 801(c) treats an out-of-court statement offered to explain a listener’s subsequent actions, rather than to prove its truth, as nonhearsay.

State v. Alexander · filed 2006-04-18Rule 801(c)

We conclude Officer Dozier’s testimony regarding his interaction with the detective and Plaud was nonhearsay and proper to explain his subsequent actions.

Rule 801(d)(E) does not admit a coconspirator’s statement made before the conspiracy began.

State v. Stephens · filed 2006-01-03Rule 801(d)(E)

Therefore, the trial court erred in allowing Mr. Smith to testify about the contents of his conversation with Mr. Loftin as the statements were hearsay and did not fit into the exception in Rule 801(d)(E) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.

Rule 801(d) allows a witness to recount a defendant's statement as an admission by a party-opponent.

State v. Williams · filed 2006-02-07Rule 801(d)

Banks' recollection of her telephone conversation with defendant was admissible under Rule 801 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence as an admission by a party-opponent.

Rules 801(c) and 802 permit an officer to recount statements offered to show the basis for an arrest rather than to prove the statements were true.

State v. VAREEN · filed 2006-02-21Rules 801(c) and 802

Here, Officer Cox's testimony regarding the statements made to him by the female were not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that is, to prove defendant committed the offense of assault on a female. Rather, the testimony was introduced to show Officer Cox had probable cause to lawfully arrest defendant for the offense of assault on a female. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in allowing Officer Cox's testimony.

Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts.

State v. Edwards · filed 2006-02-21Rule 801(c)

Defendant is correct that each of these three statements was hearsay, which "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) (2005).

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

State v. Laney · filed 2006-07-05Rule 801(d)(A)

Here, defendant’s statement that he would “be guilty” was admissible under the hearsay exception N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(A) because it was defendant’s own statement offered against his own interest. Therefore, the statement is admissible, and defendant’s assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a statement offered to show its effect on a listener, rather than to prove its truth, as hearsay.

State v. Glynn · filed 2006-08-01Rule 801(c)

As Bullock’s statement was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but rather to show its effect on defendant, regardless of its truth, .the statement was admissible.

Rule 801(c) excludes an out-of-court statement from hearsay when it is offered to explain the listener's subsequent conduct rather than to prove the statement's truth.

State v. SUTCLIFF · filed 2007-02-20Rule 801(c)

Here, the prosecutor's question concerning what the confidential informant told Agent Grant came in the context of establishing why Defendant's name was included on the search warrant for the Country Club Road residence. As such, the testimony was properly offered to explain Agent Grant's actions in applying and obtaining a warrant for Defendant, her husband, and the Country Club Road residence, rather than for the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 801(c) treats an informant’s statements offered to explain officers’ actions, rather than to prove their truth, as nonhearsay.

State v. Wiggins · filed 2007-08-21Rule 801(c)

As stated above, the challenged testimony was not offered for its truth and was therefore not inadmissible hearsay.

Rule 801(c) does not treat statements offered to explain why police conducted an operation as hearsay when they are not offered for their truth.

State v. George · filed 2007-11-06Rule 801(c)

We find that the statements defendant now challenges were offered for the purpose of explaining why the undercover operation was carried out at that particular time of day and in that particular area. Thus, the statements do not constitute hearsay and they were therefore properly admitted.

Rule 801(c) does not exclude an out-of-court statement offered to show the listener’s reaction rather than to prove the statement’s truth.

State v. Hazelwood · filed 2007-11-06Rule 801(c)

We conclude that Defendant’s statement was proper non-hearsay evidence introduced for the limited purpose of demonstrating malice, and we affirm the trial court’s overruling of Defendant’s hearsay objection.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a witness’s testimony at the same trial as hearsay when another witness is questioned about it.

State v. Parker · filed 2007-11-06Rule 801(c)

Because the statements at issue were in reference to Officer Shell’s testimony given during the trial, they do not constitute hearsay.

Rule 801(c) treats an out-of-court statement as hearsay when it is offered to prove what it asserts, even if the proponent calls it a historical fact.

State v. Hairston · filed 2008-05-20Rule 801(c)

In essence, defendant argues that the testimony was not elicited for its truth, but had it been admitted, the jury could have used the statement for the truth of the matter asserted, that Hicks, who had used the stolen credit cards, did not know defendant - thus making it less likely that defendant participated in the robbery of Moore. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in sustaining the State's objection as the testimony was offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Under Rule 801(c), a statement offered to show a listener's knowledge rather than to prove its truth is not hearsay.

State v. Coggins · filed 2008-12-02Rule 801(c)

Wise's statements, which were introduced through Buchanan's testimony about defendant's statement at the police station, were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, that is, that the car was in fact stolen, but they were offered to prove defendant knew or had reason to know that the car may have been stolen. The important aspect of Buchanan's testimony was not the particular words spoken by Wise to defendant, but rather that Wise made a statement and defendant responded. Id. Thus, the statements are not hearsay and were properly admitted.

Rule 801(c) does not treat out-of-court statements offered to explain an investigator’s subsequent conduct as hearsay when they are not offered for their truth.

State v. Goldston · filed 2008-12-16Rule 801(c)

We believe that the foregoing statements of Tim Rush made by Detective Smith were not elicited for the truth of the matter asserted; rather, the statements explain the course of Detective Smith's investigation after "positively [identifying the] second person" — the Defendant. The court did not err in overruling Defendant's objection and admitting Tim Rush's statements to Detective Smith.

Rule 801(c) excludes an informant’s statement from hearsay when it is offered to explain officers’ subsequent actions rather than to prove the statement’s truth.

State v. Land · filed 2009-03-17Rule 801(c)

Here, Officer Stroud's testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain the officers' subsequent actions.

Rules 801 and 802 define hearsay and generally bar its admission, but admitting hearsay does not warrant reversal without prejudice.

In the Matter of Ct · filed 2009-02-17Rules 801 and 802

Hearsay is defined as "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 (2007). Absent an exception, hearsay is not admissible. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 802 (2007). ... Notwithstanding the hearsay statements made by Ms. Walker, as noted above, there is ample evidence to support the trial court's findings. ... Thus, we find no prejudice.

Rule 801(c) treats testimony about a third party’s consent as nonhearsay when it is admitted to explain an officer’s subsequent conduct and show that the statement was made.

State v. Hodges · filed 2009-02-17Rule 801(c)

Thus, we conclude Officer’s Prescott’s testimony as to Muir’s consent was not hearsay as it was admitted to explain his subsequent conduct and to show that Muir made this statement to him.

Under Rule 801(c), statements offered to corroborate trial testimony rather than prove their truth are not hearsay.

State v. Garcell · filed 2009-03-20Rule 801(c)

The testimony at issue was not hearsay because it was offered as corroboration evidence and not substantive evidence.

Rule 801(c) treats an out-of-court statement offered to explain an officer's subsequent conduct, rather than to prove its truth, as non-hearsay.

State v. Reardon · filed 2009-04-07Rule 801(c)

Here, the statement in question was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Instead, it was offered to explain Officer Lesassier's subsequent conduct in responding to Worthy Plumbing. ... We therefore hold that Officer Lesassier's testimony was not hearsay.

Rule 801(c) does not treat an officer’s interview statements as hearsay when they are admitted to show the circumstances of a defendant’s confession rather than to prove the statements true.

State v. Marlow · filed 2009-08-04Rule 801(c)

This statement of the detective was not offered into evidence to prove that the defendant was "a part of" the crime, but to establish the circumstances in which the defendant admitted his involvement in the crimes. The trial court, after reviewing the transcript, gave a thorough limiting instruction to the jury to ensure they did not consider the statements of the detective for the truth of what was asserted in her statements. In this context, the statements of the detective cannot be considered hearsay and the trial court properly allowed them into evidence.

Rule 801(c) permits out-of-court statements in police questions when they are offered to show their effect on a suspect’s responses rather than to prove the statements true.

State v. Miller · filed 2009-05-19Rule 801(c)

In sum, the questions containing alleged statements of non-testifying individuals were admissible so that the jury could understand the circumstances in which the defendant was caught in a lie, changed his story, and made significant admissions of fact, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a statement as hearsay when it is offered to show that it was made rather than to prove its truth.

State v. Newsome · filed 2009-06-02Rule 801(c)

Here, we agree with the State that Taylor's testimony was not offered for the purpose of proving the truth of Williams' statement, but instead was evidence of a statement "made in bravado directly to the victim."

Rule 801(d)(A) permits a party's own statement from an earlier hearing to be admitted against that party as a party-opponent statement.

In the Matter of Kg · filed 2009-07-21Rule 801(d)(A)

Additionally, the statements made by respondent-parents at the domestic violence hearing were their own statements and were admitted against respondent-parents at the adjudication and disposition hearing. Accordingly, the statements are admissible exceptions to the hearsay rule as statements of a party-opponent under Rule 801(d) of our Rules of Evidence.

Rule 801(c) permits a prior consistent statement containing additional details to be admitted as nonhearsay when those details strengthen the testimony it corroborates.

State v. Horton · filed 2009-09-15Rule 801(c)

Although Ms. Fiore’s testimony provided “new or additional information[,]” her testimony tended to “strengthen” the child’s testimony that she had been sexually abused by Defendant, as it tended to support the proposition that Defendant had “groomed” the child to facilitate his alleged sexual abuse of the child. ... We hold that it was not error to admit Ms. Fiore’s “grooming” testimony.

Rule 801(c) treats a prior statement offered to corroborate a witness, rather than to prove its truth, as nonhearsay.

State v. Tellez · filed 2009-11-03Rule 801(c)

Accordingly, we hold that Trooper Maynard’s testimony strengthened Childers’s testimony, and thus, the trial court properly admitted Trooper Maynard’s testimony regarding Childers’s statement to him that defendant “was drunk and left ... He was drunk and ran, got scared” for corroboration.

Rule 607 does not bar a generally consistent prior statement admitted to corroborate a witness’s testimony rather than to impeach the witness.

State v. Walker · filed 2010-06-15Rule 607

As a result, for the reasons stated above, we conclude that this case does not involve the improper admission of a prior inconsistent statement in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 607; that the present issue is more appropriately addressed under the rules applicable to the admission of corroborative testimony; and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the admission of Officer Dorn’s testimony for the purpose of corroborating Ms. Williams’ trial testimony.

Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts.

State v. Williams · filed 2009-12-08Rule 801(c)

Hearsay is defined under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence as “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, N.C.R. Evid. 801(c) (2007). The statement at issue was “[K.N.J.W.] had stated when she woke up, that her bra was hiked up on one side and her money was missing.” KN.J.W.’s statement was clearly offered to prove the tmth of the statement — that the money was missing, and there is no contention by the State that the statement was being offered for any non-hearsay purpose, or that it was admissible under any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Thus, the admission of the statement was error.

Rule 801(c) does not classify a witness's own opinion given in court and subject to cross-examination as hearsay.

Duruanyim v. Duruanyim · filed 2010-05-18Rule 801(c)

Nevertheless, we do not consider plaintiff's testimony to be hearsay. Plaintiff testified in court as to her opinion of the value of the property and was subject to cross-examination.

Rule 801(d)(A) admits a party's own incriminating statement when offered against that party.

State v. Halley · filed 2010-03-02Rule 801(d)(A)

North Carolina Rule of Evidence 801(d)(A) provides that "[a] statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party and it is . . . his own statement." ... As defendant's own statements are incriminating, they qualify as admissions.

Rule 801(c) does not treat an expert’s opinion as hearsay merely because the expert relied in part on another analyst’s reports as the basis for that opinion.

State v. Hough · filed 2010-03-02Rule 801(c)

Accordingly, Alloway’s testimony did not constitute hearsay even though it was based, in part, on reports generated by another expert.

Rule 801 does not treat an informant’s statements as hearsay when they are offered to explain an officer’s actions rather than to prove their truth.

State v. Batchelor · filed 2010-03-02Rule 801

All of Deputy Shell’s contested statements explain why Deputy Shell was doing what he did; the statements were not inadmissible hearsay nor was the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment violated.

Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered for its truth; testimony about a witness’s own observations is not hearsay.

State v. Blue · filed 2010-10-05Rule 801(c)

Hearsay is defined by statute as “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) (2009). ... It is evident from his testimony that Dr. Butts was testifying as to his own observations and providing information rationally based on his own perceptions. Indeed, defendant points us to no portion of Dr. Butts’ testimony in which he sought to testify as to the declarations or findings of anyone other than himself. ... Thus, we hold the trial court did not err in permitting Dr. Butts to testify as to the autopsy findings.

Under Rule 801, a prior statement offered to corroborate a witness’s trial testimony is not hearsay when it is not offered for its truth.

State v. Johnson · filed 2011-03-01Rule 801

Statements properly offered to corroborate former statements of a witness are “not offered for their substantive truth and consequently [are] not hearsay.” ... We find that the statement was properly admitted in corroboration of Flowers’s trial testimony.

Rule 802 bars substantive use of a witness’s prior inconsistent statements when no evidentiary rule or statute permits it.

State v. Phillips · filed 2011-06-16Rule 802

Hearsay is inadmissible unless an evidentiary rule or statute otherwise provides, id. Rule 802 (2009), and no rule or statute in North Carolina applies here to allow this evidence to be admitted substantively, see State v. Williams, 355 N.C. 501, 533, 565 S.E.2d 609, 628 (2002) (“[Ijthas been established that prior inconsistent statements may not be used as substantive evidence.” (citation omitted)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1125, 154 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2003).

Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered for its truth; opening the door to rebuttal evidence does not permit admission of the substance of otherwise inadmissible hearsay.

State v. Sharpless · filed 2012-06-05Rule 801(c)

While defendant may have opened the door to the admission of further evidence regarding his potential involvement in the robbery, we do not believe defendant opened the door to the admission of the substance of improper hearsay statements. ... Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the admission of the substance of the anonymous call over defendant’s objection such that there is a probability that the jury might have otherwise reached a different verdict.

Rule 801 treats an out-of-court identification offered to prove the identity asserted as hearsay when it does not corroborate or impeach in-court testimony.

State v. James · filed 2014-07-15Rule 801

Mr. DiConzo’s testimony is hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801 (2011).

Rule 801(c) allows an out-of-court statement offered to explain a listener’s subsequent conduct rather than to prove the statement’s truth.

State v. Graham · filed 2014-08-19Rule 801(c)

Thus, when considered in context, Mr. Clay’s testimony to the effect that the “word on the street” indicated that Defendant had been one of his assailants was admissible, not for the purpose of showing the truth of the matter asserted, but to explain his decision to look at Defendant’s photograph on Facebook.

Rule 805 requires each part of a statement containing multiple layers of hearsay to qualify for a hearsay exception.

State v. Bryant · filed 2014-09-16Rule 805

In view of Defendant’s contention that these statements tended to exculpate Defendant and inculpate Eric Bryant, it is clear that Defendant sought to use most, if not all, of Eric Bryant’s statements for the truth of the matter asserted. As a result, in order to obtain the admission of these statements, Defendant was required to show that “each part of the combined statements conforms to an exception to the hearsay rule.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 805.

Rule 801(c) permits an out-of-court statement offered to show how it influenced a witness, rather than to prove the statement true.

State v. Edmonds · filed 2014-10-07Rule 801(c)

We note that Jamie Johnson’s testimony was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted—that Detective Briggs believed defendant James committed the robbery. Thus, Jamie Johnson’s statement was admissible as it was merely offered to illustrate how Detective Briggs purportedly influenced her into making a statement in the case.

Rule 801(c) permits a witness’s prior statements to be admitted to corroborate the witness’s testimony when they are not offered for their truth.

State v. Royster · filed 2014-10-21Rule 801(c)

In the case sub judice, the recordings were admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of corroborating Alvin’s testimony, which means that they were not used for the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 801(c) permits an out-of-court statement offered to explain conduct or provide context for an interview when it is not offered to prove its truth.

State v. Fowler · filed 2015-06-16Rule 801(c)

Where out-of-court statements were offered to explain the subsequent conduct of defendant, the trial court did not err in admitting those statements, with a limiting instruction to the jury, as non-hearsay.

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

State v. Hackney · filed 2015-10-06Rule 801(d)(E)

In sum, the State established a prima facie case of conspiracy, the declarations were made by a party to it and in pursuance of its objectives, and while the conspiracy was active.

Rule 801(d) covers a party-opponent’s response that manifests adoption of or belief in the truth of another person’s statement.

Atl. Coast Props., Inc. v. Saunders · filed 2015-10-06Rule 801(d)

And the response is a statement by a party-opponent, Respondent Edna Winslow, manifesting her adoption or belief in the truth of her father’s statement, thus qualifying it under one of the most fundamental and commonly invoked hearsay exceptions. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d).

Statements offered to show the speakers’ mental states and motives, rather than to prove the truth of what they asserted, are not hearsay under Rule 801.

N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Ledford · filed 2016-05-03Rule 801(c)

Given that Ledford was not offering the statements by Apodaca and Shanahan to prove the truth of the matters they asserted—that is, that his reassignment was wrong and should not have occurred—but instead to show their existing mental states and motives, we are unpersuaded by DPS’s argument that Gross’s challenged testimony should have been barred as hearsay.

Rule 801(c) permits a substantially similar prior statement to be admitted for corroboration when it is not offered to prove the truth of what it asserts.

State v. Thompson · filed 2016-10-18Rule 801(c)

Hearsay is defined as “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) (2015). ... We conclude that the challenged statements meet the requirements for admission as corroborative evidence.

Rule 802 does not bar affidavits containing a testator’s relevant declarations supporting a claim of undue influence in a will caveat.

In re the Est. of James Junior Phillips · filed 2016-12-20Rule 802

These affidavits meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. §1A-1, Rule 56(e) and do not violate Rule 802 or the case law outlined in In re Will of Ball.

Rule 801(c) does not treat statements offered to explain the course of a police investigation as hearsay when they are not offered to prove their truth.

State v. Rogers · filed 2017-02-07Rule 801(c)

In the instant case, it is clear that the testimony at issue was not introduced to prove defendant’s guilt, but to establish the background and reasons for Detective Luther’s investigation.

Rule 801(c) treats testimony about a third party's apology as hearsay when it conveys the contents of an out-of-court statement.

State v. Ervin · filed 2017-05-02Rule 801(c)

Defendant's mother's apology is inadmissible hearsay. ... Shuler testified about the contents of a statement from Defendant's mother, the apology. Thus, the matter asserted is an apology.

Rule 801(d) allows a party’s writings to be admitted as statements of a party opponent despite the hearsay rule.

The NC State Bar v. Livingston · filed 2017-12-19Rule 801(d)

And, in any event, as the statement of a party opponent, Livingston’s writings were admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d) (2015).

A statement admitted to explain an officer’s actions is hearsay if the jury is also permitted to use it to prove identity or motive.

State v. Cromartie · filed 2018-02-06Rule 801(c)

Thus, while the challenged testimony was admissible to explain Deputy Snyder’s subsequent conduct, it was error for the trial court to admit the testimony as evidence of Defendant’s identity and motive. When the testimony is considered for the truth of the matter asserted, it is hearsay.

Rule 801(d)(C) permits a statement authorized by a party to be admitted against that party even when the statement does not admit guilt.

State v. McNeill · filed 2018-06-08Rule 801(d)(C)

Because, as discussed previously, defendant authorized his attorneys to convey the information to law enforcement, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence as “statement[s] by a person authorized by [defendant] to make a statement concerning the subject.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d)(C).

Rule 801(c) excludes an out-of-court statement offered to prove its truth, while permitting testimony offered to show a witness’s state of mind.

State v. Mylett · filed 2018-12-04Rule 801(c)

Unlike the jurors' testimony, defendant's statement that "the officer admitted he didn't try to spit on him" is inadmissible hearsay. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801(c). In his brief, defendant explains that he offered this evidence "to rebut the allegations and show that he and his brother were victims"-i.e. to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Accordingly, unlike the juror-witnesses' testimony on the matter, defendant's testimony regarding the fight was inadmissible hearsay.

Rule 801(d)(E) permits admission of a coconspirator’s statement when independent evidence establishes a prima facie conspiracy and the statement was made during and in furtherance of it.

State v. Chevallier · filed 2019-03-05Rule 801(d)(E)

Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged statement under Rule 801(d)(E)’s co-conspirator exception.

Rule 801(c) treats a witness’s account of what someone else told her, offered to prove its truth, as hearsay.

In re S.H-K.J.L. · filed 2019-03-05Rule 801(c)

It is apparent the social worker's testimony was hearsay and inadmissible unless within an exception to the hearsay rule, and no exception is apparent on the record.

Rule 801(d) does not treat a third party's later written account of a defendant's statements as the defendant's own admission.

State v. Bennett · filed 2019-03-05Rule 801(d)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d) creates an exception to the hearsay rule for admissions by a party-opponent. However, in order to constitute an admission by a party-opponent, the statement must be "his own statement, in either his individual or representative capacity[.]" N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d). In the case before us, the 2 September 2015 written statement was a statement by the child's mother, not by Defendant. While the statements Defendant made during the 26 August 2015 phone call could constitute admissions by a party-opponent, the child's mother's narrative re-telling, written a week after the 26 August 2015 phone call, cannot.

Rule 801(c) does not treat testimony as hearsay when it conveys no statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

State v. Chavez · filed 2020-04-07Rule 801(c)

As Rooks’ testimony did not contain a statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the testimony was not hearsay and its admission “raises no Confrontation Clause concerns.”

Rule 801 does not treat automatically generated date and time stamps as hearsay because a machine, rather than a person, creates them.

State v. Smith · filed 2022-12-20R. 801

Pursuant to our Rules of Evidence, the hearsay rule applies only to out-of-court statements and is defined as a person’s “oral [assertion], written assertion, or nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him as an assertion.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, R. 801. Hence, the relevant assertion was not made by a person; it was made by a machine.

Rule 801(c) does not treat an out-of-court statement as hearsay when it is offered to show the effect of conduct on the jury rather than to prove the statement’s truth.

The N.C. State Bar v. Key · filed 2024-06-18Rule 801(c)

This statement is not considered hearsay as it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather was offered to show the effect that Defendant’s misconduct had on the jury.

Purely machine-generated raw data are not hearsay under Rule 801 because a machine cannot make a human assertion.

State v. Lester · filed 2025-01-31Rule 801(a)–(c)

Machines are not “person[s]” and so do not rank as hearsay “declarants.” See N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 801(b). Their raw output—much like a photograph—is the product of “mechanical procedures” rather than an intentional assertion of fact.

Rule 801(c) does not treat a prior statement as hearsay when it is admitted to corroborate a witness’s trial testimony rather than to prove the statement’s truth.

State v. Upchurch · filed 2025-07-02Rule 801(c)

The video of Cotton’s interview with Detective Womack was introduced to corroborate his in-court testimony. ... Accordingly, the evidence was not hearsay, and the trial court did not err by allowing its admission.

Rule 801(c) excludes a statement offered to explain the listener’s subsequent conduct from the definition of hearsay.

State v. James · filed 2025-11-05Rule 801(c)

As such, Smith’s testimony was admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of describing her subsequent conduct.

Rule 801(d) permits a parent’s statements to a social worker about another parent’s conduct to be admitted as party-opponent admissions in a termination proceeding.

In re: A.C-M.J. · filed 2026-03-04Rule 801(d)

N.C. Gen. Stat. 8C-1, Rule 801(d) allows a hearsay exception for admissions of a party-opponent and states: ... The trial court did not err in allowing Father’s statements to the social worker.

A co-conspirator’s statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible against another conspirator after a prima facie showing that the conspiracy existed.

State v. Turner · filed 1990-05-15Rule 801(c)

We also said that based upon this conclusion, it was not error for the trial court to- admit Ernie Lucas’ extrajudicial statements regarding “getting up with [his] man....”

Rule 803(3) permits a victim's statements about prior abuse to show her state of mind when it is relevant and their probative value outweighs potential prejudice.

State v. Walker · filed 1992-11-19Rule 803(3)

However, the statements were admissible under N.C.G.S.§ 8C-1, Rule 803(3), the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(3) permits testimony about a victim’s fear when that fear has a plausible factual basis and is relevant to the case.

State v. Glenn · filed 1993-02-12Rule 803(3)

Here, Lewis’ testimony on voir dire that Osborne told him that defendant attempted to.kill her and that Osborne wanted to move in with Lewis provides a plausible reason and factual basis for the victim’s fear of defendant. The victim’s fear of defendant was relevant to show the nature of the victim’s relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant’s behavior on the victim’s state of mind prior to the murder.

Rule 803(3) permits a victim’s statements about her marriage as evidence of her then existing state of mind when relevant to motive.

State v. Payne · filed 1990-07-26Rule 803(3)

The State counters, and we agree, that the victim’s statements to the defendant were admissible as evidence of the victim’s then existing state of mind. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(3).

Rule 803(3) permits a victim’s statements about threats to show her then-existing state of mind when that state of mind is relevant.

State v. Lynch · filed 1990-07-26Rule 803(3)

We need not address these arguments because here Officer Laughter’s testimony, as well as the testimony of Edgerton and Pruitt, is admissible undér the state-of-mind hearsay exception, Rule 803(3).

Rule 803(4) admits statements made for medical diagnosis only when the diagnosis is for treating a disease.

State v. Stafford · filed 1985-10-01Rule 803(4)

For this reason we believe the diagnosis for which the exception to the hearsay applies should be a diagnosis for the purpose of treating a disease.

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment about the cause of an injury to be admitted into evidence.

Matter of Helms · filed 1985-11-05Rule 803(4)

Thus, any statements made by the child to him for purposes of diagnosis or treatment as to the genesis of her injuries were admissible. Likewise, the statements the child made to the psychologist for purposes of diagnosis or treatment were admissible.

Rule 803(4) does not admit a patient's statement identifying an assailant when that identity is not pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Hollingsworth · filed 1985-12-31Rule 803(4)

Thus, any statement made by the victim to the doctor which identified the perpetrator could not have been pertinent to the treatment of her injuries. The statement was not, therefore, admissable pursuant to Rule 803(4).

Rule 803(4) permits a child’s statements identifying a sexual abuser when made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Gregory · filed 1985-12-31Rule 803(4)

Dr. Greene’s testimony, including statements identifying Mr. Gregory as the perpetrator of the sexual offenses, falls within the statutory exception to the hearsay rule created for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.

Section 8C-1, Rule 803 allows an excited utterance made under the stress of a startling event to be admitted despite the hearsay rule.

State v. Ruiz · filed 1985-10-15

Under the provisions of G.S. 8C-1, Rule 803, an “excited utterance,” defined as “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition,” is not excluded by the hearsay rule. The evidence involved was clearly such an utterance, and the court did not err in receiving it.

Rule 803(2) permits a spontaneous statement about a startling event made while the speaker is under the stress of excitement, even if the speaker is available to testify.

State v. Simpson · filed 1985-10-29Rule 803(2)

Under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 803(2) (Cum. Supp. 1981), a statement “relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the condition or event” is admissible even if the declarant is available as a witness. ... Here, the statement was made while the declarant was observing a bloody fight. The statement, therefore, was properly admitted.

Rule 803(22) preserves the rule against using a prior tribunal’s finding to prove the fact found in another proceeding; admitting such evidence does not warrant reversal when it causes no prejudice.

Reliable Properties, Inc. v. McAllister · filed 1985-11-19Rule 803(22)

North Carolina law has long prohibited the use of a previous finding of a court as evidence of the fact found in another tribunal. ... This practice remains the same under the new evidence code. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 803 (22) (commentary). In this case, however, the admission of this evidence was not prejudicial to the interests of plaintiff, because Connie Ward and another witness testified that she did not give the security deposits to defendant. Under these circumstances, the admission of testimony about the actions of the licensing board does not constitute reversible error.