testimony. Moreover, we find that the written order excluding the victim’s statements to Marvin Bynum states, “The proffered statements do not possess equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness as required by Rule 804(B)(4) [sic] of the Rules of Evidence.” The better practice would have been for the trial court to specify in the other orders that the evidence was admissible under Rule 804(b)(5). However, from the transcript and the nearly identical findings and conclusions in all the written orders in the record, it is clear that the hearsay testimony admitted by the court was admitted pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5). Therefore, omission of the rule number from the orders admitting the testimony was harmless. Cf. State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 97, 337 S.E.2d 833, 847 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Defendant argues further that there was
holding that it is incumbent upon the trial court to enter into the record findings of fact and conclusions that the manner of payment is reasonable and one which defendant can afford holding that before admitting rule 80324 hearsay statements the trial court must enter in the record appropriate statements rationale or findings of fact and conclusions of law holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding court must conduct new trial absent parties consent where deceased judge had not issued findings of fact and conclusions of law before death