clear general rule in North Carolina

2026Our Supreme Court has explained that this rule is “a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.” State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268 , 278–79 (1990).

2025However, because “Rule 404(b) states a clear general rule of inclusion,” Pabon, 380 N.C. at 258 (cleaned up), character evidence is inadmissible only if its sole probative value “is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged,” State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 279 (1990).

2022That is, relevant evidence of past crimes, wrongs, or acts by a defendant are generally admissible for any one or more of the purposes enumerated in Rule 404(b)’s non-exhaustive list, “subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.” Coffey, 326 N.C. at 279 (emphasis in original); see Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. at 130 (noting that “[Rule 404(b)’s] list ‘is not exclusive, and such evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant to any fact or iss

2022That is, relevant evidence of past crimes, wrongs, or acts by a defendant are generally admissible for any one or more of the purposes enumerated in Rule 404(b)’s non-exhaustive list, “subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.” Coffey, 326 N.C. at 279 (emphasis in original); see Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. at 130 (noting that “[Rule 404(b)’s] list ‘is not exclusive, and such evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant to any fact or iss

2024Although “Rule 404(b) is a clear general rule of inclusion[, it] . . . . is still constrained by the requirements of similarity and temporal proximity.” Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. at 130–31, 726 S.E.2d at 159 (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).

2024Although “Rule 404(b) is a clear general rule of inclusion[, it] . . . . is still constrained by the requirements of similarity and temporal proximity.” Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. at 130–31, 726 S.E.2d at 159 (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).

2022PICKENS 2022-NCCOA-527 Opinion of the Court Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150, 154 , 567 S.E.2d 120, 122 (2002) (citation omitted). ¶ 17 Notwithstanding this important protective role, our North Carolina Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “Rule 404(b) state[s] a clear general rule of inclusion.” State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990); see Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. at 153-54 , 567 S.E.2d at 122 (quoting Coffey for this same proposition).

2022PICKENS 2022-NCCOA-527 Opinion of the Court Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150, 154 , 567 S.E.2d 120, 122 (2002) (citation omitted). ¶ 17 Notwithstanding this important protective role, our North Carolina Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “Rule 404(b) state[s] a clear general rule of inclusion.” State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990); see Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. at 153-54 , 567 S.E.2d at 122 (quoting Coffey for this same proposition).

2010Cases decided by our Supreme Court under Rule 404(b) have evinced a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, "subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged." State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 2787-9 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990) (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 206 , 362 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036 , 99 L.

2010Cases decided by our Supreme Court under Rule 404(b) have evinced a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, "subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged." State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 2787-9 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990) (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 206 , 362 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036 , 99 L.

2012Our Supreme Court has described Rule 404(b) as "`a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.'" State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 447 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 301-02 (2009) (quoting State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990)).

2012Our Supreme Court has described Rule 404(b) as "`a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.'" State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 447 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 301-02 (2009) (quoting State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990)).

2023State v. Carpenter, 361 N.C. 382, 388 , 646 S.E.2d 105, 110 (2007). ¶ 47 Our Supreme Court has held: Rule 404(b) state[s] a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.

2023State v. Carpenter, 361 N.C. 382, 388 , 646 S.E.2d 105, 110 (2007). ¶ 47 Our Supreme Court has held: Rule 404(b) state[s] a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.

2024“Rule 404(b) is a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence . . . subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.” State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76, 88 , 552 S.E.2d 596, 608 (2001) (citation omitted).

2024“Rule 404(b) is a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence . . . subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.” State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76, 88 , 552 S.E.2d 596, 608 (2001) (citation omitted).

2009Our Supreme Court has held that Rule 404(b) "`is a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence . . . subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.'" State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 443 , 533 S.E.2d 168, 221 (2000) (quoting State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990)), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 931 , 121 S. Ct. 1380 , 149 L.

2009Our Supreme Court has held that Rule 404(b) "`is a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence . . . subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.'" State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 443 , 533 S.E.2d 168, 221 (2000) (quoting State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990)), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 931 , 121 S. Ct. 1380 , 149 L.

2002“Our Supreme Court has held that Rule 404(b) states a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.” State v. Barnett, 141 N.C.

2002State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990); see also McAllister, 138 N.C.App. at 257 , 530 S.E.2d at 863 (evidence is only excluded under Rule 404(b) if its sole probative value is to show defendant's propensity to commit the crime). "`The admissibility of evidence under this rule is guided by two further constraints—similarity and temporal proximity.'" State v. Barnett, 141 N.C.App. 378, 389-90 , 540 S.E.2d 423, 431 (2000) (citation omitted), affirmed, 354 N.C. 350 , 554 S.E.2d 644 (2001).

2001State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990) (quoting State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 206 , 362 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1987)); State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 43 , 468 S.E.2d 232, 241 (1996).

2001State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990) (quoting State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 206 , 362 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1987)); State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 43 , 468 S.E.2d 232, 241 (1996).

1993Ed. 2d ---, 1992 WL 347109 (1993). “ ‘When a husband is charged with murdering his wife, the State may introduce evidence covering the entire period of his married life to show malice, intent and ill will towards the victim.’ ” State v. Lynch, 327 N.C. 210, 219 , 393 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1990) (quoting State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 561 , 324 S.E.2d 241, 247 (1985)).

1993Ed. 2d ---, 1992 WL 347109 (1993). “ ‘When a husband is charged with murdering his wife, the State may introduce evidence covering the entire period of his married life to show malice, intent and ill will towards the victim.’ ” State v. Lynch, 327 N.C. 210, 219 , 393 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1990) (quoting State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 561 , 324 S.E.2d 241, 247 (1985)).

2016"Thus, even though evidence may tend to show other crimes, wrongs, or acts by the defendant and his propensity to commit them, it is admissible under Rule 404(b) so long as it also 'is relevant for some purpose other than to show that defendant has the propensity for the type of conduct for which he is being tried.' " Id. at 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d at 54 (quoting State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201 , 206, 362 S.E.2d 244 , 247 (1987) (quoting State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626 , 637, 340 S.E.2d 84 , 91 (1986) )).

2016"Thus, even though evidence may tend to show other crimes, wrongs, or acts by the defendant and his propensity to commit them, it is admissible under Rule 404(b) so long as it also 'is relevant for some purpose other than to show that defendant has the propensity for the type of conduct for which he is being tried.' " Id. at 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d at 54 (quoting State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201 , 206, 362 S.E.2d 244 , 247 (1987) (quoting State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626 , 637, 340 S.E.2d 84 , 91 (1986) )).

2025This Court “interpret[s] Rule 404(b) as a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant[.]” State v. Maready, 362 N.C. 614, 622 , 669 S.E.2d 564, 569 (2008) (emphasis in original) (citing State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990)).

2025This Court “interpret[s] Rule 404(b) as a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant[.]” State v. Maready, 362 N.C. 614, 622 , 669 S.E.2d 564, 569 (2008) (emphasis in original) (citing State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990)).

2018GODFREY Opinion of the Court “to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.” State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 289 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990).

2015Rule 404(b) evidence also may be introduced to "explain[ ] the context, motive[,] and set-up of *515 the crime [s], ... [if it] forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury." State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542 , 548, 391 S.E.2d 171 , 174 (1990) (citation omitted). " Rule 404(b) state[s] a clear general rule of inclusion [.]" Id. at 550 , 391 S.E.2d at 175 (citation omitted).

2015Rule 404(b) evidence also may be introduced to "explain[ ] the context, motive[,] and set-up of *515 the crime [s], ... [if it] forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury." State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542 , 548, 391 S.E.2d 171 , 174 (1990) (citation omitted). " Rule 404(b) state[s] a clear general rule of inclusion [.]" Id. at 550 , 391 S.E.2d at 175 (citation omitted).

2014Thus, even though evidence may tend to show other crimes, wrongs, or acts by the defendant and his propensity to commit them, it is admissible under Rule 404(b) so long as it also is relevant for some purpose other than to show that defendant has the propensity for the type of conduct for which he is being tried. -6- State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 302-03 , 406 S.E.2d 876, 890 (1991) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2014Thus, even though evidence may tend to show other crimes, wrongs, or acts by the defendant and his propensity to commit them, it is admissible under Rule 404(b) so long as it also is relevant for some purpose other than to show that defendant has the propensity for the type of conduct for which he is being tried. -6- State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 302-03 , 406 S.E.2d 876, 890 (1991) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2014Rule 404(b) evidence must meet Rule 403’s balancing test which requires the exclusion of relevant evidence only where its probative value “is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” State v. Jacobs, 363 N.C. 815, 823 , 689 S.E.2d 859, 864 (2010) (citing N.C.

2014Rule 404(b) evidence must meet Rule 403’s balancing test which requires the exclusion of relevant evidence only where its probative value “is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” State v. Jacobs, 363 N.C. 815, 823 , 689 S.E.2d 859, 864 (2010) (citing N.C.

2012In reviewing the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b), "we must assure that the evidence meets the two constraints of `similarity and temporal proximity.'" State v. Khouri, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 716 S.E.2d 1, 8 (2011) (citation omitted).

2010Rule 404(b) is "a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged." State v. Coffey , 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990). "[T]he ultimate test for determining whether such evidence is admissible is whether the incidents are sufficiently similar and not so remote in time as to be more probative than prejudicial under the balancing t

2010Rule 404(b) is "a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged." State v. Coffey , 326 N.C. 268, 278-79 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990). "[T]he ultimate test for determining whether such evidence is admissible is whether the incidents are sufficiently similar and not so remote in time as to be more probative than prejudicial under the balancing t