hearsay rule in North Carolina

2021“In order to fall within this hearsay exception, there must be (1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous reaction, not one resulting from reflection or fabrication.” State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 , 337 S.E.2d 833, 841 (1985). ¶ 21 First, on appeal, Defendant makes no argument the alleged assault on Smoot would not qualify as a “sufficiently startling experience” under the excited utterance exception.

2021“In order to fall within this hearsay exception, there must be (1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous reaction, not one resulting from reflection or fabrication.” State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 , 337 S.E.2d 833, 841 (1985). ¶ 21 First, on appeal, Defendant makes no argument the alleged assault on Smoot would not qualify as a “sufficiently startling experience” under the excited utterance exception.

2009Id. at 637 , 412 S.E.2d at 355 . "[W]here hearsay proffered by the prosecution comes within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause of the North Carolina Constitution is not violated . . . ." State v. Jackson, 348 N.C. 644, 654 , 503 S.E.2d 101, 107 (1998).

2009Id. at 637 , 412 S.E.2d at 355 . "[W]here hearsay proffered by the prosecution comes within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause of the North Carolina Constitution is not violated . . . ." State v. Jackson, 348 N.C. 644, 654 , 503 S.E.2d 101, 107 (1998).

2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ]

2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ]

2020Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009) (The “admissibility [of evidence under Rule 703] does not depend on an exception to the hearsay rule, but on the limited purpose for which it is offered.” (quoting State v. Wood, 306 N.C. 510 , 516–17, 294 S.E.2d 310, 313 (1982))). 14.

2020Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009) (The “admissibility [of evidence under Rule 703] does not depend on an exception to the hearsay rule, but on the limited purpose for which it is offered.” (quoting State v. Wood, 306 N.C. 510 , 516–17, 294 S.E.2d 310, 313 (1982))). 14.

2003On the contrary, Wylene’s statements regarding her fear of defendant fall under Rule 803(3), since “[i]t is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim’s statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim’s relationship to the defendant.” Scott, 343 N.C. at 335 , 471 S.E.2d at 618 (holding that testimony of several witnesses regarding conversations with the victim “related directly to [the victim’s] fear of [the] defendant” and thus were “properly admitted pursuant to the state of mind exception”); see also

2003On the contrary, Wylene’s statements regarding her fear of defendant fall under Rule 803(3), since “[i]t is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim’s statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim’s relationship to the defendant.” Scott, 343 N.C. at 335 , 471 S.E.2d at 618 (holding that testimony of several witnesses regarding conversations with the victim “related directly to [the victim’s] fear of [the] defendant” and thus were “properly admitted pursuant to the state of mind exception”); see also

2005Justice Thomas stated, “There appears to be little if any indication in the historical record that the exceptions to the hearsay rule were understood to be limited by the simultaneously evolving common-law right of confrontation.” Id. at 362 . 6 .

2000The Supreme Court of Virginia noted that “ ‘[w]here proffered hearsay has sufficient guarantees of reliability to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied.’ ” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 558, 574 , 499 S.E.2d 522, 534 (1998) (quoting White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356 , 116 L.

2002The business records exception is “one of the well recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.” Sims v. Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32, 35 , 125 S.E.2d 326, 328 (1962).

1978Our Supreme Court held in Sims v. Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32 , 125 S.E. 2d 326 (1962), that upon a proper foundation hospital and medical records are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2024WOMBLE Opinion of the Court State v. Valentine, 357 N.C. 512 , 517–18 (2003) (citations omitted).

2024In Valentine, “[t]he State concede[d] that the trial court erroneously failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law[,]” and, “[b]ecause the trial court failed to determine whether the victim’s statements . . . contained equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness necessary for admission under the exceptions to the hearsay rule,” our Supreme Court “review[ed] the record and [made] [its] own determination.” Id. (marks omitted).

2020The medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule is based upon the common-law rationale “that a patient has a strong motivation to be truthful in order to obtain appropriate medical treatment.” State v. Hinnant, 351 N.C. 277, 287 , 523 S.E.2d 663, 669 (2000).

2020The medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule is based upon the common-law rationale “that a patient has a strong motivation to be truthful in order to obtain appropriate medical treatment.” State v. Hinnant, 351 N.C. 277, 287 , 523 S.E.2d 663, 669 (2000).

2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ]

2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ]

2018State v. Wilson, 313 N.C. 516 , 533, 330 S.E.2d 450 , 462 (1985) (citations omitted). *689 Our Court has previously held that hearsay statements based on "GPS tracking evidence and simultaneously prepared reports are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule." State v. Gardner , 237 N.C.

2018State v. Wilson, 313 N.C. 516 , 533, 330 S.E.2d 450 , 462 (1985) (citations omitted). *689 Our Court has previously held that hearsay statements based on "GPS tracking evidence and simultaneously prepared reports are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule." State v. Gardner , 237 N.C.

2001II "Evidence tending to show the victim's state of mind is admissible [as an exception to the hearsay rule] so long as the victim's state of mind is relevant to the case at hand." State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 314 , 406 S.E.2d 876, 897 (1991).

2001II "Evidence tending to show the victim's state of mind is admissible [as an exception to the hearsay rule] so long as the victim's state of mind is relevant to the case at hand." State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 314 , 406 S.E.2d 876, 897 (1991).

2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ]

2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ]

2004Specifically, the State acknowledges that: (1) the trial court made inadequate findings as to the hearsay statement's reliability as required under the "residual" hearsay exception analysis and improperly referred to the hearsay statement's consistency with other statements and testimony rather than the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness found in the statement and circumstances at the time the statement was made; (2) the statement in the Court of Appeals' opinion that "testimony was admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule and, consequently, a right of confrontation does not appl

2004Specifically, the State acknowledges that: (1) the trial court made inadequate findings as to the hearsay statement's reliability as required under the "residual" hearsay exception analysis and improperly referred to the hearsay statement's consistency with other statements and testimony rather than the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness found in the statement and circumstances at the time the statement was made; (2) the statement in the Court of Appeals' opinion that "testimony was admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule and, consequently, a right of confrontation does not appl

1998Rogers, 109 N.C.App. at 500 , 428 S.E.2d at 225 . "[S]tatements admissible under a traditional, or `firmly rooted,' hearsay exception are deemed inherently trustworthy and thus, without further inquiry, satisfy the reliability prong of the Confrontation Clause test." Id. at 499 , 428 S.E.2d at 225 (quoting State v. Jones, 89 N.C.App. 584, 598 , 367 S.E.2d 139, 147-48 (1988)).

1995In reaching that conclusion, we stated that “ ‘[t]he unavailability of the victim due to incompetency and the evidentiary importance of the victim’s statements adequately demonstrate[d] the necessity’ requirement of the two-part hearsay test.” Jones at 590 , 367 S.E.2d at 143 , quoting State v. Gregory, 78 N.C.

1988See Wilson v. Indemnity Corp., 272 N.C. 183 , 158 S.E.2d 1 (1967).

1986For our Supreme Court has said: “The hearsay rule does not apply to testimony that a particular statement was made by some person other than the witness when the fact sought to be established is the making of the statement itself, as distinguished from the truth of the matter so stated.” Wilson v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 272 N.C. 183, 188 , 158 S.E. 2d 1, 5 (1967).

2013Because this Court’s entire evaluation of the Confrontation Clause claim in Huffstetler concerned the reliability of the expert opinion and its status as an exception to the hearsay rule, 312 N.C. at 106-08 , 322 S.E.2d at 119-21 (concluding that because the information was “inherently reliable” and “reasonably relied upon” by other experts in the field there could be no violation of the Confrontation Clause (internal citations omitted)), Crawford directly overrules any precedent set by Huffstetler, making it entirely invalid for purposes of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.

2013Because this Court’s entire evaluation of the Confrontation Clause claim in Huffstetler concerned the reliability of the expert opinion and its status as an exception to the hearsay rule, 312 N.C. at 106-08 , 322 S.E.2d at 119-21 (concluding that because the information was “inherently reliable” and “reasonably relied upon” by other experts in the field there could be no violation of the Confrontation Clause (internal citations omitted)), Crawford directly overrules any precedent set by Huffstetler, making it entirely invalid for purposes of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.

2011“To be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, the hearsay statement must possess ‘guarantees of trustworthiness’ that are equivalent to the other exceptions contained in Rule 804(b).” State v. McLaughlin, 316 N.C. 175, 179 , 340 S.E.2d 102, 104 (1986) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341, 348 (3d Cir. 1978)).

2011“To be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, the hearsay statement must possess ‘guarantees of trustworthiness’ that are equivalent to the other exceptions contained in Rule 804(b).” State v. McLaughlin, 316 N.C. 175, 179 , 340 S.E.2d 102, 104 (1986) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341, 348 (3d Cir. 1978)).

2016"Evidence admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule may still violate the Confrontation Clause." Id. (citation omitted); see also Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 , 158 L.Ed.2d at 192 ("[ E]x parte examinations might sometimes be admissible under modern hearsay rules, but the Framers certainly would not have condoned them.").

2016“Evidence admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule may still violate the Confrontation Clause.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51 , 158 L.

2003The trial court did not make findings for this hearsay exception to apply as required by State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1 , 340 S.E.2d 736 (1986).

2003The trial court did not make findings for this hearsay exception to apply as required by State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1 , 340 S.E.2d 736 (1986).

2002The business records exception is “one of the well recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.” Sims v. Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32, 35 , 125 S.E.2d 326, 328 (1962).

1978Our Supreme Court held in Sims v. Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32 , 125 S.E. 2d 326 (1962), that upon a proper foundation hospital and medical records are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2022App. at 639 , 777 S.E.2d at 348 . ¶ 24 Such a hearsay exception exists when a declarant is unavailable.

2022App. at 639 , 777 S.E.2d at 348 . ¶ 24 Such a hearsay exception exists when a declarant is unavailable.

2025Indeed, it is well established that properly authenticated records kept by a department of social services in a juvenile matter may be “admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.” In re Smith, 56 N.C.

2005This Court stated that "[w]hile [the witness] did not personally conduct the interviews of the children, and she testified to the content of both these interviews, [the petitioner] offered and this Court accepts that these statements are admissible under the ordinary course of business hearsay exception." 162 N.C.App. at 394-95 , 591 S.E.2d at 590 (citing In re Smith, 56 N.C.App. 142, 148 , 287 S.E.2d 440, 444 ("While it is true that the witnesses had no firsthand knowledge ... when they assumed responsibility of the case, *920 each had familiarized herself with the case history of the client

1984As Justice Harlan concluded in Dutton , "[i]f the hearsay exception involved in a given case is such as to commend itself to reasonable men, production of the declarant is likely to be difficult, unavailing, or pointless." Id.

1984“It has been noted that the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule ‘stem from the same roots’ and are ‘designed to protect similar values.’ ” State v. Porter, 303 N.C. 680, 696 , 281 S.E. 2d 377, 388 (1981), quoting Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 81, 86 , 91 S.Ct. 210, 216, 219 , 27 L.Ed. 2d 213, 223, 225 (1970).

2021“This exception to the hearsay doctrine was created because of a ‘patient’s strong motivation to be truthful’ when making statements for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.” State v. Lewis, 172 N.C.

2021“This exception to the hearsay doctrine was created because of a ‘patient’s strong motivation to be truthful’ when making statements for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.” State v. Lewis, 172 N.C.