State v. Garner, ___ N.C. App. ___, 798 S.E.2d 755 (Mar. 21, 2017)

In this case involving a larceny from a country club, the Confrontation Clause was not violated when the trial court admitted evidence that the owners of the country club received an anonymous phone call providing information about the perpetrator. The trial court admitted the statement with a limiting instruction that it was not to be considered for its truth but only to show the course of the officers’ investigation based on the information provided by the caller. Because the statement was admitted for a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted, it falls outside of the protections afforded by the Confrontation Clause.