conclusion was manifestly unreasonable. Rhoten’s testimony would have indicated that Helen had admitted to sexual intercourse with her boyfriend, but falsely claimed it was nonconsensual. Defendant, however, claimed that Helen made up claims that they had had sexual intercourse in order to retaliate against him. Thus, in one instance, Helen was covering up consensual intercourse with her boyfriend, while, in the other, she was alleged to have been lying about intercourse with her stepfather. Because of the different circumstances, the trial court could reasonably determine that Rhoten’s testimony was not highly probative when compared to the potential for unfair prejudice if the jury perceived Helen as promiscuous. See State v. Harris, 189 N.C. App. 49, 64, 657 S.E.2d 701, 711 (2008) (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 362 N.C. 366, 664 S.E.2d
holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding under rule 403 evidence of prior motel stays by prosecuting witness and defendant in case in which defendant denied that sexual encounter giving rise to charges occurred because of the questionable relevance of this evidence and its likely prejudicial effect on the remainder of the prosecuting witness testimony holding that before immunity under the provision at okla const art ii  27 can be given a witness such witness must have testified under an agreement made with the prosecuting attorney approved by the court or such witness must have claimed the privilege of silence which was by the court denied and such witness must have been compelled by the court to so testify 