Volume 157 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

<bold>1. Discovery — medical records — State's witness — request that State</bold> <bold>investigate</bold> <block_quote> An attempted murder defendant's right to due process was not violated by the denial of his motion to require the State to investigate to learn the identities of any mental health professionals from whom an accomplice (and State's witness) had sought treatment. The motion did not suggest that the witness's ability to observe and to testify to events was impaired by a mental defect or by any medication used to treat a mental illness; defendant did not allege that information about the witness's mental health was in the possession of the State; and the denial of the motion did not prevent defendant from exploring the issue at trial.</block_quote> <bold>2. Discovery — sealed medical records — in camera review — no</bold> <bold>exculpatory evidence</bold> <block_quote> The trial court correctly ruled that the sealed medical records of a witness did not contain exculpatory evidence, even though the court said that certain medical terms were hard to understand. The court did not say that the records were incomprehensible, as defendant contended, and defendant did not preserve that issue for appeal. Moreover, the Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the records.</block_quote> <bold>3. Evidence — hearsay — statements to nontestifying officer — related by</bold> <bold>another officer</bold> <block_quote> Inconsistent statements from an attempted murder victim were properly excluded where they were made to an officer who did not testify and elicited at trial during the cross-examination of an SBI agent. Inconsistent statements must be proven by direct evidence. Moreover, defendant did not move at trial to admit the officer's notes under the public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule, and there was no reasonable possibility of a different result if the statement had been admitted.</block_quote>