N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 803(20) permits reputation evidence about customs affecting land even when the customs predate the witness’s lifetime.

Broyhill v. Coppage · filed 1986-02-04Rule 803(20)

Reputation as to customs affecting land is not excluded by the hearsay rule. G.S. 8C-1, R. Ev. 803 (20). It is not limited to the lifetime of the witness.

Rule 803(6) permits authenticated business records but does not admit unverified information supplied by an outsider.

State v. Brewington · filed 1986-04-01Rule 803(6)

Because the accuracy of those numbers necessarily depends on the trustworthiness of the unknown person providing them to the operator, we are inclined to agree with defendants that it was error to permit the State to introduce into evidence those portions of the telephone records indicating the telephone numbers of the pay stations from which the collect calls were made.

Rule 803(1) allows a statement made shortly after an event as a present sense impression when the delay is not too long under the circumstances.

State v. Odom · filed 1986-04-02Rule 803(1)

Mr. Hartell went to notify the police immediately after the abduction. The officer was on the scene in ten minutes; Mr. Hartell then gave him a statement about the event. Under the facts of this particular case, Mr. Hartell’s statement was not too remote to be admissible under Rule 803(1).

Rule 803 permits hearsay statements that qualify as present sense impressions or excited utterances.

State v. Markham · filed 1986-04-15Rule 803(1), (2)

Assuming that the statement objected to was arguably hearsay, we nevertheless hold that this statement was admissible under either of the above two exceptions.

Rule 803(3) admits statements about a declarant’s then existing state of mind when that state of mind is relevant and the evidence’s probative value outweighs its possible prejudicial effect.

Griffin v. Griffin · filed 1986-07-01Rule 803(3)

This evidence was admissible and its exclusion constituted error on the part of the trial court. However, in a transcribed interview with the children, they voiced these fears and desires to the court, which took them into account in its decision. The excluded evidence was thus cumulative and its exclusion is held to be without prejudicial effect.

Rule 803(2) permits hearsay testimony about a statement relating to a startling event made while the speaker is under the stress of excitement caused by it.

State v. Beaver · filed 1986-08-12Rule 803(2)

The trial court correctly deemed the accusatory statements by the defendant’s mother to be “excited utterances.” This case was tried under our new North Carolina Rules of Evidence which define an “excited utterance” as being “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.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(2) (Cum. Supp. 1985). Hearsay testimony concerning such excited utterances is admissible.

Rule 803(2) permits a statement relating to a startling event when the speaker makes it under the stress of that event.

State v. Wingard · filed 1986-08-12Rule 803(2)

As such, it is an excited utterance within the meaning of Rule 803(2) and admissible into evidence notwithstanding its hearsay character.

Rule 803(8)(c) permits trustworthy factual findings in public agency reports to be admitted against the State in a criminal case.

State v. Acklin · filed 1986-08-12Rule 803(8)(c)

The laboratory reports defendant sought to introduce meet the standards of admissibility under Rule 803(8)(c): (a) both reports were prepared by the State Bureau of Investigation, a public office or agency pursuant to authority granted by law, (b) containing factual findings, (c) to be introduced against the State in a criminal case, and (d) containing, given the impartiality of the SBI chemists and the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, adequate assurances of trustworthiness.

Rule 803(4) permits statements to a physician as substantive evidence only when they are made for medical diagnosis or treatment.

State v. Stafford · filed 1986-08-12Rule 803(4)

Under Rule 803(4) a prerequisite to admissibility for substantive purposes of statements made to physicians is that they be "made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment...." It is abundantly clear on this record, as Judge Webb concluded in the Court of Appeals, that the prosecuting witness's statements to Dr. Ponzi concerning symptoms she had experienced months earlier were made not for purposes of diagnosis or treatment but for the purpose of preparing and presenting the state's "rape trauma syndrome" theory at trial which was to commence three days later.

Rule 803(9) permits legally required death records as evidence, but does not make a coroner’s unsupported, conclusory statement that a fatal wound was self-inflicted admissible.

Drain v. United Services Life Insurance Co. · filed 1987-04-07Rule 803(9)

Another statute, which this Court must also consider in an swering this question, is N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(9). Rule 803 governs exceptions to the hearsay rule and subsection nine of this statute permits records of deaths to be introduced as evidence, if the record was made to a public office pursuant to the requirements of law. ... In the case sub judice, the coroner’s statement on the death certificate that the gunshot wound killing Drain was intentionally self-inflicted, is not based on personal knowledge of the events which took place on 10 June 1983 and can only be described as hearsay and conclusory. ... Therefore, we conclude that the exclusion of this statement on the death certificate was proper.

Rule 803(18) requires a party seeking to read drug packaging inserts through an expert on direct examination to show that the expert relied on the inserts and that they are a reliable authority.

Whisenhunt v. Zammit · filed 1987-07-21Rule 803(18)

To comply with Rule 803(18), the plaintiffs must show that the packaging inserts were relied upon by the expert witness in direct or cross-examination and must establish the inserts as reliable authority.

Rule 803(6) allows medical records testified to by witnesses to be considered for their truth under the hearsay exception.

State v. Bright · filed 1987-07-28Rule 803(6)

Instead, he permitted both attorneys to argue from the records, to the extent that the records were testified to by the witnesses. As to those portions the trial judge correctly ruled that they could be considered under an exception to the hearsay rule. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(6) (1986).

Rule 803(5) permits a recorded recollection to be read into evidence when the witness cannot now recall the matter sufficiently and adopted an accurate record while the matter was fresh in memory.

State v. Nickerson · filed 1987-09-03Rule 803(5)

We hold the reading of the statement was admissible under the rule. The testimony of Anthony Quinn Jackson showed that he once had knowledge about the matter but at the time of the trial could not recall it sufficiently to testify about it at trial. He testified further that he told the truth to the deputy and saw him write it down. He then signed the statement. This satisfies the requirement of the Rule that the statement be adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in his memory and reflected his knowledge accurately.

Rule 803(2) covers a statement about a startling event made while the declarant remains under the stress of that event, even after a delay.

State v. Kerley · filed 1987-10-06Rule 803(2)

Under these circumstances, Warren’s out-of-court statement to Brooks falls squarely within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule regardless of whether it was made fifteen or eight minutes after the fire started.

Rule 803(2) permits a statement about a startling event made while the speaker remains under the stress of that event, even if the statement answers a question.

State v. Murphy · filed 1987-11-05Rule 803(2)

While clearly hearsay, we hold Joseph’s testimony admissible under the excited utterance exception. An excited utterance is “[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.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(2) (1986).

The learned treatise exception does not make textbook statements admissible without a foundation showing their relevance.

York v. Northern Hospital District of Surry County · filed 1987-12-22Rule 803(18)

G.S. 8C-1, Rule 803, delineates instances in which evidence will not be excluded simply because such evidence is hearsay. It does not, however, annul the requirement of G.S. 8C-1, Rule 402, that the evidence be relevant. Plaintiffs in this case laid no foundation that would tend to show that the standards described in the textbook were the same as those of hospitals similarly situated to defendant Hospital. The mere fact that the textbook was used in Surry Community College does not establish its relevance. Until the proper foundation was established, the information in the textbook had no relevance to the issues before the jury.

Rule 803(20) allows reputation evidence about customs affecting land despite the hearsay rule.

McFadyen v. Olive · filed 1988-04-05Rule 803(20)

Reputation as to customs affecting land is not excluded by the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(3) admits a declarant’s statement of present intent to perform a future act as evidence of that act.

State v. McElrath · filed 1988-04-06Rule 803(3)

Accordingly, we hold that this written telephone message is admissible hearsay under Rule 803(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence as evidence of a then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.

Rule 803(1) permits a hearsay statement explaining an event when it is made while the declarant perceives the event or immediately afterward.

State v. Reid · filed 1988-05-05Rule 803(1)

Because the event and Barlow’s statement occurred simultaneously and the statement was in explanation, we conclude that Detective Williams’ testimony concerning Barlow’s statement was admissible under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(24) requires a case-by-case examination before a child victim’s statements may be admitted under the residual hearsay exception.

State v. Deanes · filed 1988-12-08Rule 803(24)

The confrontation clause and Rule 803(24) require a case-by-case examination of the facts of each case to ensure that their elements are fully satisfied.

Rule 803(24) requires a proponent to satisfy its notice requirements before a statement may be admitted under the residual hearsay exception.

In Re Hayden · filed 1989-10-17Rule 803(24)

As to the latter contention, a condition precedent to admissibility under the Rule 803(24) residual hearsay exception is the proponent’s satisfaction of that Rule’s notice requirements. The record discloses that these were not complied with; therefore, this testimony was properly excluded.

Rule 803(3) permits hearsay statements revealing a declarant’s then-existing fear when that state of mind is relevant to a disputed issue.

State v. Faucette · filed 1990-06-13Rule 803(3)

Rule 803(3) permits the introduction of hearsay that is a “statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(3) (1988). Patricia’s statements regarding defendant’s threat revealed her then-existing fear of defendant, further explaining why she did not want defendant visiting her home.

Rules 803(3) and 803(2) allow testimony about a declarant’s stated intent to act and a statement made while under the stress of a startling event, respectively.

State v. Sneed · filed 1990-07-26Rule 803(2), Rule 803(3)

Rule 803(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides that testimony of a witness, concerning a statement by a declarant other than the witness, as to the declarant’s then-existing state of mind is not excludable under the hearsay rule. ... Therefore, Ward’s testimony as to Reid’s declaration that he wanted to go rob Tripp’s Service Station was admissible as evidence of Reid’s then-existing intent to engage in a future act. ... Rule 803(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides that testimony of a witness as to a statement made by a declarant relating to a startling event and made while the declarant was under the stress of that event is not excludable under the hearsay rule. ... Therefore, Ward’s testimony concerning Reid’s statement was admissible under Rule 803(2).

Rule 803(24) requires the trial court to conduct the prescribed inquiry before admitting residual hearsay; failure to do so is reversible error.

In re Gallinato · filed 1992-06-02Rule 803(24)

Because no particularized findings were made, we have no way to determine if the ruling was supported by competent evidence. Deanes and Smith make clear that the trial court is “required” to conduct this analysis.

Rule 801(c) treats a statement offered to explain conduct rather than prove its truth as nonhearsay, while Rule 803(2) admits a spontaneous statement prompted by a startling event.

State v. Reid · filed 1994-03-04Rule 801(c); Rule 803(2)

As such, the significance of the statement “lies solely in the fact that it was made,” and the statement is not hearsay and is admissible. ... We hold that such an experience meets the requirement of a sufficiently startling event. Also, the statement was a spontaneous one, made in reaction to the threatening gestures; thus, there was no time to reflect or fabricate. We therefore conclude that the statement was admissible as an “excited utterance.”

Rule 803(3) permits a statement of intent as evidence of the declarant’s then existing mental or emotional condition.

State v. Shoemaker · filed 1993-07-30Rule 803(3)

Sherry Wood’s testimony as to the victim’s statement was admissible under Rule 803(3) as evidence of the victim’s mental or emotional condition at the time she made the statements.

Rule 803(3) concerns the declarant’s state of mind when the statement was made, not at the time of death.

State v. McHone · filed 1993-10-08Rule 803(3)

Contrary to defendant’s contention, Rule 803(3) does not refer to the victim’s state of mind at the time of death, but refers to the victim’s state of mind at the time the statements were made.

Rule 803(3) permits statements of a declarant's then-existing intent, plan, motive, or design as exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Murray v. Associated Insurers, Inc. · filed 1994-05-03Rule 803(3)

Under Rule 803(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, a statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, such as intent, plan, motive, or design is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 803(3). Decedent's statements to his widow, his daughter, and Ms. Cushing tend to show decedent's intent or motive in travelling to Hound Ears on 27 June 1986. Accordingly, their testimony is admissible for that purpose.

Rule 803(3) admits a statement of the declarant’s then-existing intent to engage in a future act.

State v. Bryant · filed 1994-07-29Rule 803(3)

In the present case, defendant’s statement to his sister that he was going to meet two guys to buy stolen merchandise was admissible under Rule 803(3) as a statement of his then-existing intent to engage in a future act.

Rule 803(2) permits a statement about a startling event when the speaker makes it under the stress of that event.

State v. Littlejohn · filed 1995-07-28Rule 803(2)

N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(2) provides that "[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 admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. These statements were certainly made while the declarant was under stress caused by a startling event. They were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(3) permits relevant statements of a declarant’s then existing state of mind despite the hearsay rule.

State v. Lambert · filed 1995-07-28Rule 803(3)

The victim’s statements to Troutman and Turner that his marriage “wasn’t getting along like it should” and that he was leaving were statements indicating his mental condition at the time they were made. Thus, the statements meet the requirements of Rule 803(3).

Rule 803(3) permits relevant hearsay statements expressing a victim's then-existing intent to be an aggressor, including threats the victim did not communicate to the defendant.

State v. Ransome · filed 1996-03-08Rule 803(3)

We conclude that the hearsay statements constitute statements of the Johnson brothers' then-existing states of mind as expressions of their intentions to be aggressors in a confrontation with defendant. ... Because the testimony in question was admissible under Rule 803(3) and was relevant, the trial court erred in excluding it.

Rule 803(3) permits a victim’s statements about his then-existing state of mind to show his relationship with the defendant.

State v. Burke · filed 1996-05-10Rule 803(3)

In the instant case, Morrison’s statements to Williams were admissible under Rule 803(3) as a statement of his then-existing state of mind to show the relationship between Morrison and defendant.

Rule 803 permits a statement made under the stress of a startling event as an excited utterance and a statement describing an event while it is perceived or immediately afterward as a present sense impression.

State v. Gainey · filed 1996-04-04Rule 803(1), Rule 803(2)

We conclude that the statement here was properly admitted as an excited utterance under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(2), or as a present sense impression pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(1).

Rule 803(1) admits a statement explaining a condition made immediately after the declarant perceived it as a present-sense impression.

State v. Taylor · filed 1996-07-31Rule 803(1)

This testimony by Elnora Lynch as to what her daughter told her was admissible as a present-sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(1) (1992). It was a statement explaining a condition made immediately after the declarant had perceived the condition.

Rule 803(3) permits a murder victim’s statements showing fear of the defendant to establish the nature of their relationship and rebut claims of self-defense and accident.

State v. Crawford · filed 1996-07-31Rule 803(3)

After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the conversations between the victim and the four witnesses related directly to the victim’s fear of defendant and that the victim’s statements were properly admitted pursuant to the state of mind exception to the ... hearsay rule 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 her murder.

Rule 803(3) permits a victim’s statement of intent to withhold money when that intent is relevant to the defendant’s motive.

State v. Miller · filed 1996-11-08Rule 803(3)

Here, the victim’s state of mind regarding his intention not to give defendant the money defendant wanted was relevant to the issue of defendant’s motive. The testimony in question thus was admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(3) permits a victim’s statements about his feelings, including contemporaneous explanations of those feelings, when his state of mind is relevant.

State v. Westbrooks · filed 1996-12-06Rule 803(3)

Likewise, in the instant case the victim’s statements bear directly on the victim’s relationship with defendant at the time the victim was killed. Defendant again argues that these statements are recitations of facts rather than state of mind. However, under the facts of this case, we find that these statements were made contemporaneously with and in explanation of the victim’s statements that he was concerned and upset about his finances. Thus, these statements are admissible as statements of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind.

Rule 803(2) permits a statement about a startling event when the speaker makes it while still under the stress of that event.

State v. Braxton · filed 1996-11-08Rule 803(2)

There was no time to reflect on his thoughts or fabricate a story between the shooting and the actual statement, thus making the declaration spontaneous. Hence, Moore’s testimony regarding the statement fits squarely within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule and was properly admitted.

Rule 803(2)’s excited utterance exception can admit a child’s spontaneous statements after a startling event when the child’s reflective thought remains suspended.

State v. Perkins · filed 1997-02-10Rule 803(2)

The trial court admitted these statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(2). The scope of this exception has been expanded where children are the hearsay declarants. ... In this case the child made his statements approximately ten hours after the murder and one hour after the body had been discovered. He had been through a startling experience — witnessing his sister’s death — that suspended reflective thought. Furthermore, his statements were spontaneous; nothing in the record supports defendant’s contention that the statements were fabricated or the result of secondhand information.

Rule 803(3) permits a statement of a person’s then-existing state of mind when that state of mind is relevant, even if the statement was made some time before the alleged crime.

State v. East · filed 1997-03-07Rule 803(3)

Because the victim’s state of mind regarding her intention not to give defendant the money he wanted was relevant to the issue of defendant’s motive for murder, the testimony in question was admissible under the state of mind exception. The fact that the statement was made some time before the estimated time of the murders is irrelevant.

Rule 803(3) permits hearsay to show the declarant’s state of mind, not the state of mind of a witness who testifies about the statement.

State v. Allen · filed 1997-08-05Rule 803(3)

The trial court’s admission of the hearsay testimony was a misapplication of the “state of mind” exception contained in Rule 803(3), which permits hearsay testimony to show the state of mind of the declarant, not the witness who testifies concerning the statement.

Rule 803(3) permits testimony about a victim’s fear when surrounding facts explain the emotion and the jury considers the testimony only as evidence of state of mind.

State v. Gray · filed 1997-10-03Rule 803(3)

Each of the witnesses testified as to the victim’s “state of mind,” that she was in fear for her life. The factual circumstances surrounding her statements of emotion serve only to demonstrate the basis for the emotions. ... The evidence was admissible under the state-of-mind exception of Rule 803(3).

Rule 803(2) permits statements made immediately after a shooting as excited utterances.

State v. Gaines · filed 1997-04-11Rule 803(2)

We first conclude that these statements were excited utterances and thus are not excluded by the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(3) permits hearsay statements showing a victim’s then-existing state of mind when they are relevant to proving premeditation and deliberation.

State v. Corpening · filed 1998-03-17Rule 803(3)

Therefore, the proffered hearsay testimony was admissible under Rule 803(3) to show the victim’s then-existing state of mind, and was relevant, together with all the other evidence, under Rule 402 to show the premeditated and deliberated nature of the murder.

Rule 802 excludes an out-of-court identification offered to prove identity when no hearsay exception applies.

Reis v. Hoots · filed 1998-12-29Rule 802

The evidence is classic hearsay prohibited by Rule 802, see N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 802 (1992), and does not fall within any of the statutorily defined exceptions, see N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 803, 804 (1992). No evidence was offered regarding the unavailability of the postmaster, nor did defendant offer any other basis for qualification of this testimony under any exception to the hearsay rule. Admission of this testimony was error.

Rule 803(2) allows an excited utterance even when the declarant is a criminal defendant who does not testify.

State v. Riley · filed 1998-01-06Rule 803(2)

The applicability of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule does not depend on the declarant actually testifying in the trial where the excited utterance is offered.

Rule 803(2) permits a statement about a startling event when the declarant remains under the stress of that event and has had no opportunity to reflect or fabricate.

State v. Coria · filed 1998-12-01Rule 803(2)

The trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence and, in turn, support the court’s ruling that Ms. Coria’s statements were made while she was still under the stress of a startling event and that she therefore had no opportunity to reflect on her statements.

Rule 803(3) permits relevant statements showing a declarant’s then-existing state of mind, including facts that explain the declarant’s emotions.

State v. Exum · filed 1998-03-03Rule 803(3)

The victim’s statements relating factual events that tend to show the victim’s state of mind when making the statements, however, are not excluded from the coverage of Rule 803(3) where the facts related “serve ... to demonstrate the basis for the [victim’s] emotions.”

Rule 803(2) permits an excited utterance to be admitted even if the declarant later denies making it; that testimony affects the statement’s weight, not its admissibility.

State v. Boczkowski · filed 1998-09-15Rule 803(2)

However, Rule 803(2) allows the statement to be admitted regardless of the declarant’s subsequent testimony. Sandy’s subsequent testimony goes to the weight the jury should give to the statements rather than to their admissibility.

Rule 803(2) permits a victim’s account of an incident as an excited utterance when she gives it immediately afterward, while still upset and without time to reflect.

State v. Murillo · filed 1998-12-31Rule 803(2)

This testimony indicates that the victim called her brother-in-law immediately after the incident, while she was still upset and had not had time to reflect. It thus was properly admitted as an excited utterance.

Rule 803(3) permits statements describing past events when they also show the declarant’s then-existing state of mind.

State v. Wilds · filed 1999-05-18Rule 803(3)

Here, the witnesses’ testimony regarding Tonya’s prior statements is admissible, to show Tonya’s state of mind, despite the fact that the statements also contained descriptions of factual events.

Rule 803(3) permits admission of hearsay statements reflecting the declarant’s state of mind.

State v. Nobles · filed 1999-06-25Rule 803(3)

We hold that, as to the remaining hearsay objections, they were properly overruled by ... the trial court since the statements reflected the victim’s state of mind and were therefore admissible under Rule 803(3).

Rule 803(3) permits a victim’s statements that express the victim’s then-existing state of mind rather than merely recount facts.

State v. Brown · filed 1999-04-09Rule 803(3)

Similarly, in the case sub judice, the statements attributed to the victim were admissible, as they indicated his then-existing state of mind and were not merely a recitation of facts.

Rule 803(3) permits hearsay evidence of a declarant’s then-existing intent to engage in a future act.

State v. Rivera · filed 1999-04-09Rule 803(3)

However, Rule 803(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence allows the admission of hearsay testimony into evidence if it tends to show the declarant’s then-existing state of mind. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(3) (1997). ... Thus, Segers’ testimony concerning Bryant’s statements was admissible as evidence of Bryant’s then-existing intent to engage in a future act.

Rule 803(5) allows a recorded recollection to be read to the jury when the witness cannot recall the matter at trial but adopted an accurate record while it was fresh in memory.

State v. Leggett · filed 1999-10-05Rule 803(5)

Davis’ testimony establishes that both statements are prior recollections recorded and satisfy the requirements of Rule 803(5).

Rule 803(5) permits a recorded recollection to be read into evidence only if the witness made or adopted it while the matter was fresh and it accurately reflected the witness’s knowledge; the record itself may be admitted as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.

State v. Spinks · filed 1999-12-21Rule 803(5)

Here, the trial court erred in allowing the statement to be read into evidence without a showing that the statement “was made or adopted by [Yancey] when the matter was fresh in [her] memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly.” ... Further, by the plain language of Rule 803(5), it was error to admit the written statement as an exhibit.

Rule 803(3) can admit a victim’s statements about events when accompanying testimony shows her state of mind, but excludes statements that merely recount past events.

State v. Lathan · filed 2000-06-06Rule 803(3)

Thus, where a statement was made in isolation, unaccompanied by a description of emotion, courts have tended to find that hearsay testimony relating that statement falls outside the scope of Rule 803(3). Conversely, where the witness described the victim’s demeanor or attitude when making the statement, the courts have tended to admit the testimony pursuant to 803(3). ... By contrast, the testimony of Ms. Stubbs, Ms. Green, Ms. Beachum, and Ms. Presley was inadmissible. Their testimony was unaccompanied by descriptions of the victim’s emotions or mental state, but were instead only statements regarding past factual events.

Rule 803(3) permits hearsay statements showing a declarant’s then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.

State v. Thibodeaux · filed 2000-08-25Rule 803(3)

As to defendant’s arguments under Rules 804(b)(5), 803(3), 404(b), and 403, upon examining the record on appeal, we find that the hearsay statements in question constitute, and are admissible as, statements of the declarant’s then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition pursuant to Rule 803(3).

Rule 802 bars testimony recounting a non-testifying witness’s out-of-court statements when those statements are inadmissible hearsay.

In Re Dula · filed 2001-04-17Rule 802

This testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay, see N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 802 (1999), and on remand should not be considered by the trial court.

Rule 804(b)(5)'s notice requirement can be satisfied without the declarant's address when the proponent lacks it but provides reliable contact information that gives the opposing party a fair opportunity to meet the evidence.

State v. Fowler · filed 2001-07-20Rule 804(b)(5)

Obviously, the state could not provide what it did not have but nonetheless provided defendant with a reliable means to contact Shah. Accordingly, the state’s failure to produce Shah’s address in India did not deny defendant a fair opportunity to meet the evidence at trial.

Rule 803(3) permits factual statements that reveal a declarant’s state of mind about a relationship, even when the statements do not expressly describe the declarant’s feelings.

State v. Patterson · filed 2001-09-18Rule 803(3)

However, as in Brown, these facts tend to show the victim's state of mind as to his relationship with defendant and were therefore admissible under Rule 803(3).

Rule 803(3) permits statements of a victim’s current feelings and intent when her state of mind is relevant to her relationship with the defendant.

State v. King · filed 2001-06-08Rule 803(3)

Thus, these statements were relevant and admissible as statements of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind.

Rule 803(2) permits a statement about a startling event under the excited utterance exception only if the statement was spontaneous rather than the product of reflection or fabrication.

State v. Safrit · filed 2001-08-21Rule 803(2)

However, we feel that defendant’s statements lacked the spontaneity necessary to show that they were made free from reflection or fabrication.

Rule 803(18) permits statements from a scientific article under the learned treatise exception when expert testimony establishes the article as reliable authority.

Sterling v. Gil Soucy Trucking, Ltd. · filed 2001-09-18Rule 803(18)

His testimony established the Dodrill article as reliable scientific authority. Therefore, a proper foundation was established for the admission into evidence of the Dodrill article pursuant to the requirements of Rule 803(18). Thus, the article was not inadmissable as hearsay and we find no error in the Court's admission of this scientific article.

Section 8C-1 permits excited utterances under Rule 803(2) and relevant statements of then-existing intent under Rule 803(3).

State v. Nicholson · filed 2002-02-01

Rule 803(2) therefore allows the admission of these statements into evidence. ... These statements fall under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 804(a)(4) requires a good-faith effort to procure a declarant’s attendance before an alleged death can establish unavailability.

State v. McCail · filed 2002-06-18Rule 804(a)(4)

Absent a showing of at “ ‘least a good-faith, genuine, and bona fide effort to procure the declarant’s attendance[,]’ ” defendant cannot prove Summerville’s unavailability by reason of his death under Rule 804(a)(4).

Rule 803(3) permits testimony about a declarant’s statements that reveal her then existing state of mind, including fear.

State v. Williams · filed 2002-07-16Rule 803(3)

Ms. Bledsoe’s testimony explained Ms. Alston’s feelings and conduct and revealed her fear of defendant, particularly her fear of the imminent encounter. The trial court did not err in admitting these statements into evidence pursuant to Rule of Evidence 803(3).

Rule 803(3) permits hearsay about a declarant’s state of mind when witnesses adequately describe the declarant’s emotional state.

State v. Earwood · filed 2003-01-21Rule 803(3)

After examining the testimony of the witnesses complained of, we are of the opinion that the statements were properly admitted as the witnesses adequately described the emotional state of the victim. Therefore, the trial court was correct in allowing the testimony to come in under Rule 803(3), and this assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 803(2) permits a spontaneous statement about a startling event made while the speaker remains under the stress of that event; answering a question does not necessarily defeat spontaneity.

State v. Wright · filed 2002-07-16Rule 803(2)

The “excited utterance” exception permits the admission of statements “relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(2). ... Under these circumstances, we conclude Wright’s statements fall within the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(2) excludes a statement that lacks the spontaneity required for an excited utterance.

State v. Riley · filed 2002-12-17Rule 803(2)

Based on this evidence, we conclude that defendant’s statement lacked the spontaneity necessary to show that it was made free of reflection or fabrication. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in sustaining the State’s objection and finding defendant’s statement inadmissible under Rule 803(2).

Rule 803(2) permits a child’s excited utterance made several hours after a startling event when the statement remains spontaneous; admission does not require proof that the child is unavailable.

State v. Lowe · filed 2002-12-17Rule 803(2)

Thus, the trial court did not err by admitting the hearsay evidence as an excited utterance under Rule 803(2) without any showing that Joshua was unavailable and without making any findings required under the residual exception.

Rule 803(1) permits a present sense impression made while the declarant perceives an event or immediately afterward; statements made later that day, after a police officer stayed with the declarant all afternoon, do not qualify.

State v. Smith · filed 2002-08-06Rule 803(1)

Here, the record indicates only that Ms. Todd’s statements were made the same day as the event, but after a police officer had stayed with her all afternoon. Under these facts, they would not qualify as being made “immediately []after” the event, as required by Rule 803(1), and were therefore not admissible under this hearsay exception.

Rule 803(3) permits a victim’s statements about her relationship with the defendant when offered to show her then existing state of mind.

State v. Carroll · filed 2002-12-20Rule 803(3)

Accordingly, the statements are admissible not as a recitation of facts but to show the victim’s state of mind.

Rule 803(5) does not require a signature to admit a recorded recollection; admissibility depends on the witness’s adoption of the statement and its reliability.

State v. Love · filed 2003-03-04Rule 803(5)

Rather, the test for admissibility is squarely focused on the witness’ adoption of the statement, and the statement’s reliability. Although a signature is certainly evidence of adoption and reliability, it is neither conclusive nor a necessary precondition.

Rule 803 admits statements describing events as they happen or immediately afterward as present sense impressions, and spontaneous statements made under the stress of a startling event as excited utterances.

State v. Clark · filed 2003-08-05Rule 803(1), Rule 803(2)

The statements of the unknown men that the store was being robbed and then, moments after the robbery, that the robbers had driven off in a gray Jeep described events either while they were happening or immediately afterwards. The statements therefore qualify as a present sense impression. There was also sufficient evidence of a startling experience — an armed robbery — and that the statements were a spontaneous reaction to justify admission as excited utterances.

Rule 803(3) permits statements that show a declarant’s then-existing state of mind, including statements explaining the basis for that state of mind.

State v. Smith · filed 2003-12-05Rule 803(3)

We thus hold that the testimony regarding the blue van served to support Martin’s assertion that it was “spooky” at home alone during the day and tended to show her state of mind at the time of the conversation. Ms. Helms’ testimony of the statements Martin made four days prior to her death reflects Martin’s state of mind and comes within the Rule 803(3) hearsay exception.

Rule 803(1) does not admit a statement as a present sense impression when it was made about seven hours after the event and after the declarant underwent surgery.

State v. Wiggins · filed 2003-08-05Rule 803(1)

Although the risk is low that the victim formed or seized an opportunity to manipulate the truth, we cannot hold as a matter of law that statements made approximately seven hours after the shooting and after the declarant had undergone general anesthesia and surgery fit within the present sense impression hearsay exception.

Rule 803(3) permits hearsay statements about earlier events when those facts explain the declarant’s then-existing fear.

State v. Valentine · filed 2003-11-07Rule 803(3)

The factual circumstances in the statements made to both Parker and Moody explained the victim’s “upset” and “concern[ed]” state of mind. Because the statements made by the victim to both Parker and Moody related directly to the victim’s fear of defendant, the statements were admissible to establish the victim’s then-existing state of mind.

Rule 803(5) requires a showing that the witness has insufficient recollection before a prior statement may be used as substantive evidence.

State v. Alston · filed 2003-12-02Rule 803(5)

Here, however, there was no showing that defendant had an insufficient recollection of events to testify as required by Rule 803(5) so that his statement could be used as substantive evidence.

Rule 803(3)’s state-of-mind exception can admit a victim’s statements about abuse even when the victim does not expressly say she is afraid.

State v. Dawkins · filed 2004-01-20Rule 803(3)

Thus, while the state of mind exception is most easily applicable when the challenged hearsay statement includes an express declaration of fear, such declarations are not absolutely required.

Rule 803(2) permits a statement about a startling event when the speaker makes it under the stress of that event, without time for reflection or fabrication.

State v. Forrest · filed 2004-05-18Rule 803(2)

Moore's statements, made immediately after rescue from defendant, described the events surrounding her kidnapping and assault and clearly fall within the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule. The trial court did not err in admitting these statements under the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(2) permits a statement about a startling event when the declarant remains under the stress of excitement and has little opportunity to fabricate.

State v. DUBAR · filed 2004-07-06Rule 803(2)

We conclude that the shooting of Debose nine times is a sufficiently startling experience to suspend his reflective thought. The statements made to Lieutenant Green occurred within three minutes of the shooting, leaving little opportunity for Debose to fabricate a story about the identity of his assailant. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that Debose's statements at the scene of the crime were admissible as an excited utterance.

Rule 803(3) does not admit a later account of past events as evidence of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind.

State v. Blackstock · filed 2004-07-06Rule 803(3)

Rather, the statements were simply a recital of Weeks’ memory of the events that took place and his emotional condition at the time. As such, they were not admissible under Rule 803(3).

Rule 803(1) allows a present sense impression made immediately after an event, and a brief lapse in time does not necessarily disqualify the statement.

State v. Morgan · filed 2004-12-03Rule 803(1)

Therefore, we conclude that Cato’s statement was made sufficiently close to the event and was admissible as a present sense impression under Rule 803(1).

Rule 803(8) permits prison records to be admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.

State v. Watson · filed 2006-09-05Rule 803(8)

Prison records on defendant’s father are admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 803(1) permits a present sense impression describing an accident’s aftermath even if the speaker did not see the accident happen.

Wooten v. Newcon Transportation, Inc. · filed 2006-08-01Rule 803(1)

However, we conclude that 911 calls reporting that “the [tractor trailer] appeared to have struck tire debris in road and ran off roadway” and that “[caller’s] husband checked the driver and advised he was not moving but he was breathing,” qualify as present sense impressions. Even if the callers did not observe the accident happen, they observed the aftermath and then reported this “event or condition.”

Rule 803(2) permits a statement about a startling event made while the speaker remains under the stress of excitement caused by it.

State v. Sloan · filed 2006-12-19Rule 803(2)

Because the testimony was properly admitted under the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule, this argument is without merit.

Rule 803(3) permits a declarant’s statements of fear to show her state of mind when she made them.

State v. Erickson · filed 2007-02-06Rule 803(3)

The witnesses’ testimonies related directly to Ms. Pierce’s fear of defendant and were admissible to show her then existing state of mind at the time she made the statements.

Rule 803(8) permits a public agency’s records prepared pursuant to a statutory reporting duty to be considered under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.

Blankenship v. Bartlett · filed 2007-07-03Rule 803(8)

North Carolina Rule of Evidence 803(8) provides that "Public Records and Reports" are not excluded by the hearsay rule. ... We hold that the trial court should have considered Exhibit A in its entirety, as the hearsay rule did not apply to its contents.

Rule 803(1) allows a statement describing an event or condition made while the speaker perceives it or immediately afterward as a present sense impression.

State v. Williams · filed 2007-08-21Rule 803(1)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(1) (2005) provides that the following type of statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule: “Present Sense Impression. — A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” ... We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the challenged statements as present sense impressions.

Rule 803(5) does not make a recorded recollection admissible merely because it differs from a witness’s testimony.

State v. Cummings · filed 2007-08-24Rule 803(5)

Merely because a witness’s testimony does not match up exactly word-for-word with a previously recorded recollection does not render the recorded recollection admissible under Rule 803.

Rule 801 defines hearsay as a statement made outside the trial or hearing and offered to prove the truth of what it asserts.

State v. Pittman · filed 2008-07-15Rule 801

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). We fail to discern in the foregoing exchange any declaration by a non-testifying witness offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 803(2) permits a statement as an excited utterance when it is made close to a startling event while the speaker remains upset and has not had time to reflect.

State v. Applewhite · filed 2008-05-06Rule 803(2)

We hold that decedent’s statements were made sufficiently close to the event and were made while he was upset and had not had time to reflect. ... These statements were admissible as an excited utterance under Rule 803(2).

Rule 803(4) permits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment when the declarant understands that purpose and the statements are reasonably pertinent to care; Rule 803(3) permits relevant statements describing the declarant's then-existing mental or emotional state.

State v. Kidd · filed 2008-12-16

Arnts's testimony was relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of Jane's self-injurious behavior and properly admitted under Rule 803(4). ... We disagree and hold that this evidence was admissible under Rule 803(3) as a description of Jane's then-existing mental and emotional state.

Rule 803(8) permits admission of an agency study reporting matters observed under its duty to investigate occupational safety and health.

Duffy v. HANESBRANDS, INC. · filed 2009-09-01Rule 803(8)

As such, the book fell within Rule 803(8)'s hearsay exception as a matter that NIOSH observed pursuant to its duty to investigate occupational safety and health.

Rule 803(5) allows an audio recording to qualify as a record of past recollection.

State v. Wilson · filed 2009-05-19Rule 803(5)

We agree and hold that an audio recording can be admissible as a “record” under Rule 803(5).

Rule 803(5) does not apply to a transcript used to refresh a witness’s memory when the transcript itself is not admitted into evidence.

State v. Black · filed 2009-07-07Rule 803(5)

Because the transcript itself was not admitted into evidence, defendant’s argument that the transcript did not qualify as a past recollection recorded pursuant to Rule 803(5) is irrelevant to the appeal sub judice.

Rule 803(3) permits statements about prior conduct to show the declarant’s state of mind when they are not offered to prove that the conduct occurred.

State v. Hernandez · filed 2010-02-02Rule 803(3)

As in Carroll, viewed in context, “the statements clearly indicate difficulties in the relationship prior to the murder. Accordingly, the statements are admissible not as a recitation of facts but to show the victim’s state of mind.”

Rule 801 does not treat an officer's account of information received as hearsay when it explains why police created a second crime scene rather than proving the information true.

State v. Tellez · filed 2010-04-06Rule 801

In the fourth instance, it is clear from the record that the information in Agent Broughton's testimony was provided to explain why a second crime scene was created, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 803(8) covers routine arrest photographs kept by police as public records.

State v. McLean · filed 2010-07-06Rule 803(8)

As noted in Weiland, photographing an arrested suspect is a routine and unambiguous record that Rule 803(8) was designed to cover.

Rule 803(3) permits a declarant’s statement of then-existing state of mind as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Seagraves v. Seagraves · filed 2010-08-17Rule 803(3)

Pauline’s statement to Deputy Gray is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule.

Rule 802 bars an officer’s testimony recounting a witness’s out-of-court account when it is offered for its truth.

State v. Banks · filed 2011-03-01Rule 802

It was thus error for the trial court to admit this hearsay testimony.

Rule 803(24) requires a trial court to record its analysis before admitting hearsay under the residual exception.

North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Cromartie · filed 2011-08-02Rule 803(24)

As no other hearsay exception is conceptually applicable to the affidavits in question and the trial court did not seek to apply any, the admission of these affidavits could only have been by reliance on Rule 803(24) and, lacking the proper procedural safeguards, “must be held to be error.”

Rule 803(3) permits a statement to be admitted to show the declarant’s then-existing state of mind.

State v. Williams · filed 2014-04-01Rule 803(3)

Defendant’s argument is without merit, as it is clear from the trial transcript that the witness’s testimony was admitted not to demonstrate a prior bad act but rather to show Brunner’s then-existing state of mind.

Rule 803(3) permits testimony about a victim’s statements concerning harassment and threats when the statements show her relevant state of mind.

State v. Mills · filed 2013-03-05Rule 803(3)

The contested testimony of Preddy involved the relationship between Defendant and Crowder, and statements by Crowder that Defendant was harassing her and had threatened her. ... Having reviewed the law and the facts of this argument, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting Preddy’s testimony pursuant to Rule 803(3).

Rule 803(24) permits admission of hearsay statements that have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and are more probative than other evidence reasonably available to the proponent.

In re M.A.E. · filed 2015-07-21Rule 803(24)

The trial court properly analyzed the admissibility of Eve's statements under Rule 803(24). Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Eve's out-of-court statements were more probative on the issues than other evidence reasonably available to DSS, in finding circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness in Eve's statements to Ms. Roulhac and Ms. Medwid, and in admitting Eve's out-of-court statements to Ms. Roulhac and Ms. Medwid at the adjudicatory hearing.

Rule 803(2) can admit a young child’s spontaneous statements about a startling event as excited utterances even when made six days later.

State v. Young · filed 2014-04-01Rule 803(2)

Because we hold Emily’s statements were admitted properly under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, we do not address whether the present sense impression or residual exception apply to this case.

Rule 803(3) permits a murder victim’s statement of fear to show her state of mind and the status of her relationship with the defendant.

State v. Cook · filed 2016-03-15Rule 803(3)

Accordingly, we hold that this statement was admissible under the state-of- mind hearsay exception. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(3).

Rule 801 does not treat testimony offered only to corroborate witnesses, rather than to prove the truth of their statements, as hearsay.

State v. Moultry · filed 2016-04-05Rule 801

While defendant focuses on hearsay, Officer Wilson’s testimony was not offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted” but merely, as explained to the jury, for corroborative purposes, and thus any hearsay argument is inapplicable. See generally N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 801 (2011).

Rule 803(2) permits a delayed disclosure as an excited utterance when the circumstances show the declarant remained under stress and lacked an opportunity to fabricate.

State v. McLaughlin · filed 2016-03-15Rule 803(2)

Based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that Preston’s statements to his mother were properly admitted under Rule 803(2) as excited utterances.

Rule 803(6) permits admission of business records when a qualified witness establishes that they were made and kept in the regular course of business by people with knowledge at or near the time of the recorded events.

In Re Goddard & Peterson, PLLC · filed 2016-07-05(6)

Our review of the record reveals that the foundational requirements of Rule 803(6) were satisfied through the submission of Duck’s affidavit, which provided that petitioner’s financial records were made and kept in the regular course of business by persons having knowledge of the information set forth at or near the time of the acts, events, or conditions recorded.

Rule 803(5) permits a recorded recollection to be used as substantive evidence when the witness lacks sufficient recollection and the foundational requirements are met.

State v. Harris · filed 2017-05-02Rule 803(5)

Therefore, based upon Defendant’s counsel’s objection, and the concomitant scope of review permitted within this Court, we must conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing the video of this interview to be played for the jury during Gibbes’ testimony as ‘past recollection recorded’ substantive evidence.

Rule 803(5) permits a recorded recollection to be read into evidence when a witness cannot testify fully and accurately from memory and the record was made or adopted while the matter was fresh and accurately reflected the witness’s knowledge.

State v. Brown · filed 2018-02-20Rule 803(5)

The trial court’s findings were based on competent evidence and support the conclusion that the prior written statements fit within the hearsay exception for recorded recollections. Accordingly, defendant’s argument that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for admissibility under Rule 803(5) is overruled.

Rule 803(24) requires timely written notice before hearsay may be admitted under its residual exception.

State v. Reid · filed 2020-10-20Rule 803(24)

Thus, Defendant failed to satisfy the first requirement of Rule 803(24), and the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded the written notice requirement had been satisfied.

Rule 802 bars a child's out-of-court statements offered for their truth when no hearsay exception applies; those statements cannot support adjudicatory findings.

In re: A.J.L.H., C.A.L.W. · filed 2020-12-15Rule 802

Finding of fact 14 and portions of finding of fact 15 are based upon inadmissible hearsay statements attributed to Margaret. These findings are erroneous and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.

Rule 803(24) allows admission of hearsay not covered by another exception when it has equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and satisfies the rule’s materiality, probative value, and interests of justice requirements.

State v. Corbett · filed 2021-03-12Rule 803(24)

Accordingly, we conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude the statements that Jack and Sarah made in their interviews with the DSS social worker under the residual exception to the hearsay rule contained in Rule 803(24).

Rule 803(2) allows a victim’s identification of an assailant as an excited utterance when the victim remains under the stress of the assault.

State v. Lowery · filed 2021-07-06Rule 803(2)

Thus, Pozo’s testimony as to Smoot’s statements identifying Defendant as the assailant were properly admitted as excited utterances.

Section 8C-1, Rule 803(5), permits a recorded recollection when the evidence shows it correctly reflected the witness’s knowledge at the time.

State v. Thomas · filed 2021-12-21Rule 803(5)

After de novo review, we find no error in admitting either of Warren’s prior statements under Rule 803(5) because there is enough evidence for us to conclude Warren’s past statements correctly reflected her knowledge at the time.

Rule 803(24) allows a trial court to find hearsay trustworthy without independent, non-hearsay corroborating evidence.

State v. Reid · filed 2022-03-11Rule 803(24)

However, we have never held that a trial court lacks the discretion to find hearsay evidence trustworthy in the absence of independent non-hearsay corroborating evidence.

Rule 803(24) requires findings reflecting careful consideration of the residual hearsay exception before a statement may be admitted.

In re: A.J., J.C. · filed 2023-07-18Rule 803(24)

As no such findings were made, either during the hearing or in the order, Jade’s purported hearsay statements were not properly admitted under this exception and should have been excluded upon objection.

Rule 803(24) cannot be used to admit records under the residual hearsay exception when the records are covered by the business records exception but have not been properly authenticated.

State v. Lester · filed 2023-10-17Rule 803(24)

The interests of justice do not support the application of the catch-all provision in Rule 803(24) to allow admission under these facts. In this manner, using the residual exception to supplant the authentication requirement as a business record is specifically foreclosed in subsection (2) of the residual exception in Rule 803(24), which specifies “whether the hearsay is not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions” covered elsewhere.

Rule 803(5) allows a trial court to infer that a witness’s memory was fresh when a recorded statement was made soon after the event, without testimony from the witness on that point.

State v. Smith · filed 2023-06-06Rule 803(5)

Ms. Skyes’s testimony to such a fact was not required, and the trial court can conclude from the fact that the interview occurred two days after the shooting that the matter was fresh in her memory at the time.

Rule 803(2) admits a statement about a startling event when it is made under the stress of excitement caused by that event.

State v. Davenport · filed 2024-08-23Rule 803(2)

Because there is evidence that Griffin and Davenport had experienced some recent conflict in their relationship and the statement Griffin made followed a startling experience and was brief and quick, this statement qualifies as an excited utterance.

Rule 803(24) permits otherwise uncovered hearsay when the statement has equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and meets the rule’s requirements for materiality, probative value, justice, and advance written notice.

State v. Womble · filed 2024-12-31Rule 803(24)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Lindsey’s out-of-court statement to Chief Gillenwater under the residual hearsay exception.

Rule 803(2) requires an excited utterance to be a spontaneous response to a startling event, made without time for reflection.

In re: L.D.E. · filed 2025-06-04Rule 803(2)

Because Luke had time to reflect on the events and the statement was not a spontaneous reaction to the events, the statement cannot be categorized as an excited utterance and introduced as a hearsay exception.

Rule 803(2) permits a spontaneous statement made under the stress of an event sufficiently startling to the declarant.

State v. Fraley · filed 2025-06-18Rule 803(2)

As Edith’s statements were spontaneous and made in the context of a sufficiently startling event, the trial court properly admitted them as excited utterances.

Rule 803(24)’s requirement that a hearsay statement be more probative than reasonably available evidence may be satisfied by a finding that requiring a child to testify would harm the child’s welfare.

In re: N.R., I.R. · filed 2026-06-03Rule 803(24)

Father challenges the “more probative” prong, but this argument fails. ... Accordingly, because Father does not challenge this finding, it is binding, see In re J.M., 384 N.C. at 591, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence.

Rule 803(3) permits a statement describing a prior assault when the statement explains the declarant’s contemporaneous fear.

State v. Martinez · filed 2025-11-19Rule 803(3)

Therefore, the testimony was admissible under Rule 803(3).

Rule 803 recognizes exceptions under which hearsay may be admissible even when the declarant is available to testify.

Best v. Best · filed 1986-06-17Rule 803

The fact that evidence is hearsay does not automatically render it inadmissible or incompetent.

Rule 803(3) permits evidence covered by its hearsay exception.

Mixion v. Attorney General NC · filed 1998-02-26Rule 803(3)

We find that the Appel- lant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was not violated because the State's proffered evidence was admissible under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(3), and Fed. R. Evid. 803(3), a "firmly rooted" exception to the hearsay rule.

An unavailable declarant’s statement against penal interest may be admitted to exculpate a defendant when corroborating circumstances clearly indicate its trustworthiness, even if it concerns other crimes.

State v. Tucker · filed 1992-03-05Rule 804(b)(3)

Neither was the 15 April statement inadmissible as hearsay. Upon defendant Tucker’s invocation of his right not to incriminate himself, the 15 April statement became admissible as a statement against penal interest by an unavailable witness.

Rule 804(b)(3) requires corroborating circumstances clearly indicating trustworthiness before a statement against penal interest is admissible in a criminal case.

State v. Reeb · filed 1992-04-22Rule 804(b)(3)

If the statement by defendant Scott was against his penal interest, it was not accompanied by corroborating circumstances which clearly indicated the trustworthiness of the statement. There was no other evidence that William Morgan was with defendant Scott at the time of the shooting and there were no other circumstances that indicated defendant Scott was telling the truth. The statement was not admissible as a declaration against a penal interest.

Rule 804(b)(5) permits hearsay from an unavailable declarant when the trial court evaluates notice, other exceptions, trustworthiness, materiality, probative value, and the interests of justice.

State v. Felton · filed 1992-01-27Rule 804(b)(5)

For each of the seven witnesses the court described the statements at issue and announced on the record its findings and conclusions as to the adequacy of notice, the unavailability of the declarant, the inadmissibility of the statements under other Rule 804 exceptions, the circumstances guaranteeing the reliability or truthfulness of the declarant’s statement, the material issues as to which the statements were especially probative, and the fact that in its opinion the statements’ admission was in the interests of justice.

Rule 804(b)(5) permits an unavailable victim’s hearsay statement when its circumstances sufficiently guarantee trustworthiness.

State v. Garner · filed 1991-12-06Rule 804(b)(5)

Based on our assessment of these factors in the instant case, we hold that the trial court did not err in finding and concluding that the victim’s statement as contained in Mills’ testimony possessed sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness to be admitted under Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(b)(5) does not permit admission of an unavailable witness’s out-of-court statements when the witness cannot distinguish truth from fantasy.

State v. Stutts · filed 1992-03-03Rule 804(b)(5)

We hold that finding a witness unavailable to testify because of an inability to tell truth from fantasy prevents that witness’ out-of-court statements from possessing guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible at trial under the residual exception set forth in Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 803(24) requires the trustworthiness of a hearsay statement to be assessed from the circumstances when it was made, rather than the declarant’s competence at trial.

State v. Holden · filed 1992-05-19Rule 803(24)

As explained in Smith and Deanes, the determination as to whether the hearsay statements are trustworthy must focus on the circumstantial guarantees of reliability which surround the declarant at the time the statement was made and not on the witness’ competence at the time of the hearing.

Rule 804(a) does not make witnesses unavailable merely because they cannot recall every detail or disagree with accounts of their prior statements.

State v. Miller · filed 1991-10-03Rule 804(a)

Neither the fact that Tyrone and Jason Miller failed to remember every detail of the killing, nor the fact that they disagreed with Officer Maxwell's account of their out-of-court statements, was sufficient to render them "unavailable" as witnesses for the purposes of Rule 804(a). It was error to admit their hearsay statements as substantive evidence under that rule.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires notice that gives the opposing party a fair opportunity to meet the hearsay evidence, even if the notice omits details later developed at trial.

State v. Ali · filed 1991-08-14Rule 804(b)(5)

In Triplett, this Court discussed the notice requirement of Rule 804(b)(5). ... The central inquiry is whether the notice gives the opposing party a fair opportunity to meet the evidence. ... Under these circumstances, the notice was sufficient.

Rule 804(b)(5) permits hearsay from an unavailable declarant when the required notice and findings support its admission.

State v. Whitted · filed 1990-07-17Rule 804(b)(5)

We conclude that the trial judge made detailed findings of fact that sufficiently supported his holding that the hearsay statements were admissible under the purview of the catchall Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(b)(5) requires written notice that gives the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond and a statement more probative than other reasonably available evidence.

State v. Shubert · filed 1991-04-02Rule 804(b)(5)

This notice, combined with defendant’s declaration at trial that he had no problem with the amount of notice given, leads us to conclude that defendant had fair opportunity to meet the victim’s statements. Also, we conclude that the victim’s statements offer the most probative evidence regarding the events that occurred in the victim’s bedroom during the beatings.

Rule 803(24) requires trial judges to record their analysis before admitting hearsay under the residual exception in trials beginning after this opinion’s certification.

State v. Smith · filed 1985-12-10Rule 803(24)

We hold that, before allowing the admission of hearsay evidence to be presented under Rule 803(24) (other exceptions), the trial judge must enter appropriate statements, rationale, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, as set forth herein, in the record to support his discretionary decision that such evidence is admissible under that rule. ... Our holding in this case will apply only to cases the trial of which begins after the certification date of this opinion.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires written notice and a fair opportunity to meet an unavailable witness’s hearsay statement; a continuance can provide that opportunity when notice arrives on the morning of trial.

State v. Howard · filed 1985-12-17Rule 804(b)(5)

The rules condition the admission under this exception upon the proponent’s written notice of his intention to offer the statement to the adverse party sufficiently in advance to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to meet the statement. ... In conclusion, defendants were given a continuance to prepare to meet the prosecution’s proffer of the deceased’s written statement. ... It was not error for the court to admit the statement.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires trustworthiness equivalent to the other hearsay exceptions, assessed under the totality of the circumstances rather than corroboration alone.

State v. McLaughlin · filed 1986-03-05Rule 804(b)(5)

Although the testimony of the defendant’s cousin, Larry McLaughlin, and the victim tended to corroborate Corbett’s confession, the analysis required under Rule 804(b)(5) may not focus solely on the existence of corroboration. The totality of the circumstances surrounding Corbett’s confession justifies our conclusion that it lacked the required “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” and was improperly admitted under the residual exception of Rule 804(b)(5).

Rule 804(b)(5) permits hearsay from an unavailable declarant when the statement has equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness, concerns a material fact, is more probative than reasonably obtainable evidence, and serves the interests of justice.

State v. Penley · filed 1986-08-29(b)(5)

To be admissible as “other exceptions” under Rule 804(b)(5), however, it is not enough for the statements to have the required circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. The statements must also be offered as evidence of a material fact, be more probative on the point for which offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts, and serve the general purposes of the Rules of Evidence and the interests of justice.

Rule 804(b)(1) permits prior testimony from a witness who died before trial when the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the earlier hearing.

State v. Giles · filed 1986-12-16Rule 804(b)(1)

Since the witness died before trial, and because defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the previous hearing, the prior testimony was properly admitted under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(1).

Rule 804(a)(1) does not treat an asserted attorney conflict of interest as a privilege that makes a witness unavailable for purposes of admitting former testimony.

Asheville Mall, Inc. v. F. W. Woolworth Co. · filed 1986-12-16Rule 804(a)(1)

We hold that the assertion of the conflict of interest in this case is not a privilege under Rule 804(a)(1). The trial court erred in finding Radeker to be unavailable and in admitting his testimony from the first trial.

Rule 804(b)(3) requires a statement offered against penal interest to actually subject the declarant to criminal liability.

State v. Singleton · filed 1987-04-07Rule 804(b)(3)

We hold that Rule 804(b)(3) requires that in order for a statement to be admissible, it must actually subject the declarant to criminal liability.

Rule 804(b)(1) does not apply to deposition testimony when the witness is available to testify.

Fortune v. First Union National Bank · filed 1987-09-01Rule 804(b)(1)

Except as provided in G.S. 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(1) the deposition testimony of Mr. Jordan is inadmissible hearsay. Since Mr. Jordan was available to testify, and in fact later did so, Rule 804(b)(1) is inapplicable.

Rule 804(b)(5) requires the trial judge to record a conclusion that no other hearsay exception applies, but failure to state it expressly can be harmless when the conclusion is implicit and the defendant is not prejudiced.

State v. Moore · filed 1987-09-15Rule 804(b)(5)

In order for a statement to fall within the 804(b)(5) hearsay “catchall” exception, the statement must not be admissible under any other exception to the hearsay rule. Detailed findings of fact are not required, but the trial judge must enter his conclusion in the record. ... While we are compelled to find that the trial court erred in failing to explicitly state its conclusion, we hold that defendant was in no way prejudiced by such error.