Brandis & Broun on North Carolina Evidence §§ 164-65 (5th ed. 1998) (noting that North Carolina allows wide latitude in the admission of prior consistent statements to corroborate a witness). Corroborative evidence may include “new or additional information” if the new information tends to strengthen or add credibility to the testimony it corroborates. Burton, 322 N.C. at 450, 368 S.E.2d at 632; State v. Ramey, 318 N.C. 457, 469, 349 S.E.2d 566, 573-74 (1986) (noting that the prior statement of the witness “need not merely relate to [the] specific facts brought out in the witness’s [trial] testimony”). The witness’s prior statements that contradict her trial testimony, however, may not be admitted “under the guise” of corroborating testimony. Burton, 322 N.C. at 450, 368 S.E.2d at 632 (<HOLDING>). In this case, Defendant contends Whitman’s
holding that hospitalization of witnesss wife and his desire to be by her side was not a substantial basis for admitting witnesss testimony from first trial holding that witnesss prior grand jury testimony was inconsistent with his claimed loss of memory at trial holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error holding that the witnesss prior statement that the victim was lying flat on his back when he was shot impermissibly contradicted the witnesss trial testimony that the victim was on top of another individual at that time holding that trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of witnesss pending indictment when witnesss testimony regarding defendants participation in murder was virtually identical to witnesss written statement which was sworn to on day of murder and prior to offense for which witness was indicted