# State v. Bullock

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · September 19, 1989 · 95 N.C. App. 524

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9603578

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. William Henry Bullock
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 19, 1989
- **Citations:** 95 N.C. App. 524; 383 S.E.2d 431; 1989 N.C. App. LEXIS 835
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Becton
- **Judges:** Arnold, Becton
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9603578

## Opinion text

Judge BECTON
concurring in the result.
Absent special circumstances, notice during trial of the intent to offer hearsay evidence pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5) should generally be deemed insufficient to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to defend against the statement. Special circumstances exist in this case. The trial court found that “Dennis Sexton was subpoenaed . . . that he failed to appear . . . that officers of the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Department made numerous attempts to locate Mr. Sexton .... [and that the defendant] had the essence of [the hearsay statements] pursuant to discovery several weeks in advance of trial.” Further, defendant conceded that he knew the State intended to call Sexton as a witness. More importantly, the other evidence in this case —both direct and corroborative — was so strong that any error in the admission of the challenged evidence was harmless. I, therefore, concur in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9603578. Public record. Not legal advice.