non-secure custody or probable cause hearings were unavailable, and it is undisputed that respondent had no opportunity to question the witnesses at the probable cause hearing. Thus, the trial court took judicial notice of what amounts to inadmissible hearsay. It eviscerated Rule 804(b)(1). While North Carolina has not specifically addressed whether a court may take judicial notice of prior testimony, other jurisdictions have. The courts have reached the same conclusion as I have and held that judicial notice of the content of testimony in other hearings— e 1992, writ denied) (“Generally, a trial judge cannot consider testimony taken at a previous trial in a subsequent trial unless such testimony is admitted into evidence.”); Jakab v. Jakab, 163 Vt. 575, 579, 664 A.2d 261, 263 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Thus, pursuant to Rule 804(b)(1), DSS could
holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding holding that a witness who testifies in one proceeding may not be compelled to give further testimony in a different proceeding holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding holding that  it is improper to judicially notice the content of testimony in another proceeding and noting that the method for introducing testimony from a past proceeding is set forth in rule 804b1 of the rules of evidence