be excluded under Rule 403, stating: I’m going to find and conclude that the evidence proffered by Ms. Rhoten is not evidence . . . that would be barred by Rule 412, the rape shield statute. However, having reviewed this evidence, the Court is of the opinion that taking into consideration all of the circumstances testified to and the time or temporal nature of the evidence offered by Ms. Rhoten, that while the Court concludes that it may be relevant to some degree, this evidence should be excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, and also by the danger of confusion of the issues and mislead[ing] the jury. We review decisions under Rule 403 for abuse of discretion. State v. Handy, 331 N.C. 515, 532, 419 S.E.2d 545, 554 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Defendant contends that “[i]t is error for a
holding that the decision to allow attorney fees rests with the trial judge and that decision may only be reversed for an abuse of discretion holding the courts ruling to admit or exclude evidence will only be reversed if it constituted an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law holding that the determination of whether statements are excited utterances is within the trial courts discretion and its ruling will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding that rule 403 determination may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon showing that trial courts ruling was manifestly unsupported by reason or could not have been result of reasoned decision