Legal Opinion

In re Krauss

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 5, 1991No. 908DC211PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

Respondent contends that the trial court erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of his children’s statements to child abuse experts under Rule 803(24). We disagree.

In State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985), the Supreme Court set out a six-pronged analysis that the trial court must apply to admit hearsay under Rule 803(24). Respondent objects to the admission of this testimony solely on the grounds that he was not given the particulars of the hearsay testimony. He argues that he was not provided with notes about some interviews that the expert witnesses had with the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Matter of EvansCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Auman v. EasterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Krauss v. Wayne County Department of Social ServicesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
  2. IN THE MATTER OF RASCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  3. Matter of KraussCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API