dissenting.
After careful review, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case because I disagree with the majority’s determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence pursuant to Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. The trial court abused its discretion when it determined that the expert testimony concerning the victim’s repressed memories was admissible under Rule 702 and satisfied the *124test set out in Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458, 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004), but still excluded the evidence under Rule 403 because the court was “troubled by the probative value of repressed memory theory and methodology.”
Though not controlling, this Court’s decision in Barrett v. Hyldburg, 127 N.C. App. 95, 487 S.E.2d 803 (1997), is instructive. There, the trial court excluded the testimony of the victim regarding her repressed memories and issued an order containing two determinations:
1) plaintiff’s testimony as to her allegedly repressed memories was precluded absent accompanying expert testimony explaining to the jury the phenomenon of memory repression, and 2) expert testimony regarding repressed memory would be excluded because of the lack of scientific assurance of the reliability of repressed memory as an indicator of what has actually transpired in the past.
Id. at 99, 487 S.E.2d at 806. On appeal, this Court only addressed the first determination and held: “[W]e affirm the trial court’s decision that plaintiff may not proceed with evidence of her alleged repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse without accompanying expert testimony on the phenomenon of memory repression].]” Id. at 101, 487 S.E.2d at 807. Consequently, any victim, including the victim in the present case, is not permitted to testify about her repressed memories unless there is expert testimony to provide “the jury a basis to understand the phenomenon and evaluate the reliability of testimony derived from such memories.” Id. at 101, 487 S.E.2d at 806.
While not explicitly set forth, Barrett indicates that repressed memory testimony may be admissible if reliable expert testimony is presented to explain the science behind retrieval of suppressed memories. The trial court judge in this case foreclosed any possibility that the victim’s testimony could be presented despite the fact that the accompanying expert testimony was deemed reliable and relevant. He based this decision on his subjective apprehension regarding the science behind memory repression and not on the underlying facts of the case. This logic would lead to the exclusion of all memory repression testimony by a victim, who must have accompanying expert testimony, despite the reliability of the expert testimony. As stated in Howerton, 358 N.C. at 461, 597 S.E.2d at 688, “once the trial court makes a preliminary determination that the scientific or technical area underlying a qualified expert’s opinion is sufficiently reliable (and, of course, relevant), any lingering questions or controversy con*125cerning the quality of the expert’s conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility.”
Defendant and the majority opinion take the position that reversing this case would be tantamount to removing the trial court’s gate-keeping function and discretion to invoke Rule 403 in these matters. That is not the case. Determining that the expert testimony is reliable and relevant does not mean that it is automatically admissible and all 403 safeguards are removed; however, the trial court should not be permitted to arbitrarily invoke Rule 403 because the trial court judge is “troubled” by the existence of controversy surrounding the science involved. Here, the trial court did not even consider the underlying facts of the case, including the victim’s memories, claims of abuse, and the medical evidence that potentially supports her claims.
Based on the foregoing, this case should be reversed and remanded because the trial court abused its discretion by arbitrarily excluding the expert witnesses’ testimony pursuant to Rule 403. Consequently, I must dissent from the majority’s opinion.