State v. Sargeant, 365 N.C. 58

Two men found Harrington’s charred body bound and face-covered; autopsy shows asphyxia by smothering.
Dalrymple gave a 10 Sept 2007 statement implicating Triplett and defendant; State then negotiated use-immunity for Dalrymple’s testimony against Triplett.
Triplett testified for the State; Dalrymple did not testify due to immunity and Fifth Amendment rights.
Defendant sought to admit Dalrymple’s out-of-court statement under Rule 804(b)(5); the trial court excluded it.
The Court of Appeals reversed; NC Supreme Court held exclusion was error due to inadequate findings and potential prejudice, remanding for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dalrymple’s statement was admissible under Rule 804(b)(5).	Dalrymple’s statement had trustworthiness and met residual criteria.	Statement lacked indicia of reliability and was not trustworthy.	No; the Court held the trial court erred in excluding the statement."
Whether the trial court properly evaluated trustworthiness under Rule 804(b)(5).	Court should consider factors (personal knowledge, nonrecantation, motivation, cross-examination).	Record supported the trial court’s conclusions on motivation and availability.	Trial court erred by not adequately addressing trustworthiness and misapplying factors.
Whether exclusion of Dalrymple’s statement prejudiced defendant.	Admission could have altered jury credibility determinations.	Prejudice insufficient to require reversal if other evidence supported conviction.	Yes; exclusion was prejudicial, requiring remand for a new trial.
Whether the State’s use-immunity agreement affected admissibility or cross-examination.	Agreement ensured cross-examination potential and reliability.	Agreement restricted Dalrymple’s testimony and undermined trustworthiness.	Court found the focus should be on trustworthiness; the agreement impacted, but did not cure, issues surrounding cross-examination.

State v. Fowler, 353 N.C. 599, 548 S.E.2d 684 (2001) (six-part inquiry for Rule 804(b)(5); notice, reliability, trustworthiness, materiality, probative value, interest of justice)
State v. Valentine, 357 N.C. 512, 591 S.E.2d 846 (2003) (trustworthiness factors for residual hearsay; unavailable declarant)
State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1, 340 S.E.2d 736 (1986) (six-factor approach; cross-examination availability; trustworthiness)
State v. McLaughlin, 316 N.C. 175, 340 S.E.2d 102 (1986) (guarantees of trustworthiness in residual hearsay)
State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985) (admissibility under catchall Rule 803(24) considerations; discretionary)