In State v. Hall, 85 N.C. App. 447, 450, 355 S.E.2d 250, 252 (1987), the defendant was incarcerated for a prior conviction for assault with attempt to rape. Id. Two days after his release from prison he assaulted another woman. Id., 85 N.C. App. at 451, 355 S.E.2d at 252. Because the victim escaped before the defendant completed the offense, the prior conviction was offered to show the defendant's intent was rape, not burglary as he contended. Id., 85 N.C. App. at 450-51, 355 S.E.2d at 252. Defendant did not testify. Id., 85 N.C. App. at 448, 355 S.E.2d at 251. The prior conviction was offered to establish the defendant's intent, which is admissible as a legitimate purpose under Rule 404(b). Id., 85 N.C. App. at 451, 355 S.E.2d at 253. In State v. Hall, 57 N.C. App. 561, 565, 291 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1982), the Court stated: The proper test as to whether an object has been put in evidence is whether a party has offered it as substantive evidence or so that the jury may examine it and determine whether it illustrates, corroborates, or impeaches the testimony of a witness. If the party shows it to a witness to refresh his recollection, it has not been offered into evidence. 57 N.C. App. at 564, 291 S.E.2d at 814. Our Supreme Court subsequently adopted the test enunciated in Hall and applied it to a case in which the cross-examination of the State's witness resulted in the admission of the contents of the defendant's post-arrest statement. State v. Macon, 346 N.C. 109, 114, 484 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1997). The defendant's statement had not otherwise been offered into evidence. Id. Our Supreme Court held: Although the writing was not itself introduced into evidence by defendant, Officer Denny's reading of its contents to the jury satisfies the requirement in Rule 10 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts that evidence has to be introduced by defendant in order to deprive him of the opening and closing arguments to the jury. The jury received the contents of defendant's statement as substantive evidence without any limiting instruction, not for corroborative or impeachment purposes, as defendant did not testify at trial and the statement did not relate in any way to Officer Denny.Id.