Hearsay and Exceptions (N.C.R. Evid. 801, 802, 803)
"The trial court's determination as to whether an out-of-court statement constitutes hearsay is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Castaneda, 215 N.C. App. 144, 147, 715 S.E.2d 290, 293, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 354, 718 S.E.2d 148 (2011).
"When preserved by an objection, a trial court's decision with regard to the admission of evidence alleged to be hearsay is reviewed de novo. State v. Johnson, 209 N.C. App. 682,692, 706 S.E.2d 790, 797 (2011).
Residual Hearsay Exception (N.C.R. Evid. 803(24))
"[A]missibility of hearsay statements pursuant to the 803(24) residual exception is within the sound discretion of the trial court .... State v.Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 97, 337 S.E.2d 833, 847 (1985).
"To facilitate appellate review of the propriety of the admission of evidence under 803(24), this Court has prescribed a sequence of inquiries which the trial court must make before admitting or denying evidence under Rule 803(24). The trial court must determine in this order:
State v. Deanes, 323 N.C. 508, 515, 374 S.E.2d 249, 255 (1988) (citing State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 92-97, 337 S.E.2d 833, 844-47 (1985)), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1009 (1989).
"Under either , the trial court must determine the following: (1) whether proper notice has been given, (2) whether the hearsay is not specifically covered elsewhere, (3) whether the statement is trustworthy, (4) whether the statement is material, (5) whether the statement is more probative on the issue than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts, and (6) whether the interests of justice will be best served by admission. State v. Valentine, 357 N.C. 512, 518, 591 S.E.2d 846, 852 (2003).
"When ruling on an issue involving the trustworthiness of a hearsay statement, a trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record.... [A]dmitting evidence under the catchall hearsay exception set out in Rule 803(24) (Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial) is error when the trial court fails to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its ruling. If the trial court either fails to make findings or makes erroneous findings, we review the record in its entirety to determine whether that record supports the trial court's conclusion concerning the admissibility of a statement under a residual hearsay exception. If we conclude that the trial court erred in excluding hearsay statement, we consider whether defendant was prejudiced. State v. Sargeant, 365 N.C. 58, 65, 707 S.E.2d 192, 196-97 (2011) (citations omitted).
"[I]n weighing the 'circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness' of a hearsay statement for purposes of Rule 803(24), the trial judge must consider among other factors (1) assurances of the declarant's personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) the declarant's motivation to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) the practical availability of the declarant at trial for meaningful cross-examination. State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1, 10-11, 340 S.E.2d 736, 742 (1986).