State v. Brown, ___ N.C. App. ___, 811 S.E.2d 224 (Feb. 20, 2018)

(1) The trial court did not err by admitting the defendant’s brother’s videotaped statement to the police as illustrative evidence. The defendant asserted that the videotaped statement constituted inadmissible hearsay. However the trial court specifically instructed the jury that the videotape was being admitted for the limited, non-hearsay purpose of illustrating the brother’s testimony. Because the videotaped statement was not admitted for substantive purposes the defendant’s argument fails.

(2) The trial court properly allowed into evidence the defendant’s brother’s testimony that “[the defendant] told [him] that he did it” and "[the defendant] told [him] he was the one that did it.” These statements were properly allowed as admissions of a party opponent under Rule 801(d).

Error | UNC School of Government


The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.