{ "id": 54151, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER SCOTT COLLINS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Collins", "decision_date": "1996-12-06", "docket_number": "No. 525A95", "first_page": "170", "last_page": "174", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "345 N.C. 170" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "64 ALR Fed. 244", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "A.L.R. Fed.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "49 ALR Fed. 478", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "A.L.R. Fed.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "56 ALR4th 402", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "463 S.E.2d 176", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 796093 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "131" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 S.E.2d 354", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "357" }, { "page": "358" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2568804 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "546" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 L. Ed. 2d 872", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 718", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "730" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 573", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790147 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 261", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "267" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793130 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "76" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "499" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790158 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "561" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0531-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 521, "char_count": 9502, "ocr_confidence": 0.734, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.441310677913928e-07, "percentile": 0.803088133709726 }, "sha256": "53347bd834c86585d460348669ce31cb91df65f032745a217b79febb7331206a", "simhash": "1:d31b8720166f53b0", "word_count": 1504 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:16.077233+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER SCOTT COLLINS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice.\nDefendant,' Roger Scott Collins, was indicted for the 29 September 1993 rape, conspiracy to commit murder, and first-degree murder of Bennie DeGraffenreidt. He was tried capitally at the 17 July 1995 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Chatham County, and was found guilty of first-degree rape, conspiracy to commit murder, and first-degree murder on the basis of premeditation and deliberation. After a capital sentencing proceeding, the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder, and the trial court sentenced defendant accordingly. In addition, the trial court sentenced defendant to a consecutive term of life imprisonment for first-degree rape and to nine years for conspiracy to commit murder.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show inter alia that on 29 September 1993, police responded to a 911 phone call that an intruder had broken into a mobile home near Pittsboro. When police arrived at the scene, they discovered the victim\u2019s body in the master bedroom, lying across the bed at an angle. Her legs were tied together at the ankles with a necktie, and a telephone cord and receiver were wrapped around her wrists. A pillow covered her face. The autopsy revealed that the victim had been sexually assaulted and smothered to death.\nPolice officers questioned the victim\u2019s husband, Michael DeGraffenreidt. He told them that someone had broken into his home and knocked him unconscious after a fight. When he woke up, he found his wife dead. The officers collected a cassette tape from the telephone answering machine. On the tape was an incoming message from someone identifying himself as \u201cRoger.\u201d Roger said he was at Top\u2019s and asked Michael DeGraffenreidt to call him. Police officers questioned defendant, Roger Collins. Defendant confessed that he raped and murdered Bennie DeGraffenreidt after conspiring with Michael DeGraffenreidt to commit the murder. Defendant told the officers that he and Michael had been discussing plans to murder Bennie for two weeks before she was killed. She had insurance on her life of about $180,000, and defendant\u2019s \u201ccut\u201d was to be $6,000, Bennie\u2019s car, and $500.00 cash \u201cup front.\u201d\nBy his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding statements made by the prosecutor at the plea and sentencing of codefendant Michael DeGraffenreidt. Defendant argues that these statements were admissible as admissions of a party opponent and relevant to his defense in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. We disagree.\nThe prosecutor\u2019s statements at the sentencing of codefendant DeGraffenreidt were not representations of fact used to prove the basis for DeGraffenreidt\u2019s plea under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1023(c). The statements were merely arguments of counsel as to some of the legitimate inferences that could be drawn from the evidence that had been introduced during sentencing in DeGraffenreidt\u2019s case to persuade the sentencing judge to make DeGraffenreidt serve his sentences consecutively, rather than concurrently. Statements of this type are neither competent nor relevant as substantive evidence. This Court has held that the attorneys have wide latitude in the arguments of hotly contested cases and may argue all the facts in evidence and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. State v. Knight, 340 N.C. 531, 561, 459 S.E.2d 481, 499 (1995). Furthermore, it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence. See State v. Hinson, 341 N.C. 66, 76, 459 S.E.2d 261, 267 (1995); State v. Garner, 340 N.C. 573, 597, 459 S.E.2d 718, 730 (1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 L. Ed. 2d 872 (1996). This assignment of error is overruled.\nBy his next assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding testimony from Eric Cates relating to defendant\u2019s character traits and changes in his character after he began his association with codefendant DeGraffenreidt.\nRule of Evidence 404(a)(1) provides that a defendant may offer character evidence as long as he tailors it \u201cto a particular trait that is relevant to an issue in the case.\u201d State v. Squire, 321 N.C. 541, 546, 364 S.E.2d 354, 357 (1988). In the context of this rule, \u201c \u2018pertinent\u2019. . . is tantamount to relevant.\u201d Id. at 547, 364 S.E.2d at 358. The evidence defendant sought to develop with Cates\u2019 testimony focused on factual information about defendant\u2019s behavior and appearance rather than pertinent traits of his character. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court erred, exclusion of the evidence could not have affected the outcome of this case in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt, including his confession. Thus, any possible error would have been harmless. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(a) (1988). This assignment of error is overruled.\nFinally, defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request to have codefendant DeGraffenreidt identified in the presence of the jury. Defendant argues that DeGraffenreidt\u2019s physical appearance was relevant to prove that he had a dominating and controlling influence over defendant when the crimes were committed.\nRule of Evidence 403 provides, in pertinent part, that \u201c [although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed ... by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 403 (1992). Whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that the ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. State v. McCray, 342 N.C. 123, 131, 463 S.E.2d 176, 181 (1995). Applying Rule 403 to this case, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court\u2019s ruling. Defendant was not prevented from presenting to the jury the relevant facts about DeGraffenreidt\u2019s age, height, weight, appearance, and size compared with defendant\u2019s physical attributes. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that physical exhibition of DeGraffenreidt to the jury would have been cumulative and a needless waste of time. This assignment of error is overruled.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we conclude that defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNO ERROR.", "type": "majority", "author": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Thomas F. Moffitt, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.", "Ann B. Petersen and Wade Barber for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER SCOTT COLLINS\nNo. 525A95\n(Filed 6 December 1996)\n1. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7\u00a7 84, 1113 (NCI4th)\u2014 prosecutor\u2019s statements at codefendant\u2019s trial \u2014 not admissions\u2014 irrelevancy in defendant\u2019s trial\nStatements by the prosecutor of some of the legitimate inferences that could be drawn from evidence introduced during sentencing in a codefendant\u2019s case to persuade the sentencing judge to make the codefendant serve his sentences consecutively were not admissions of a party opponent and were neither competent nor relevant as substantive evidence in the guilt-innocence phase of defendant\u2019s trial for first-degree murder, rape, and conspiracy to commit murder.\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7\u00a7 305, 308; Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 270, 279.\n2. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 263 (NCI4th)\u2014 changes in defendant\u2019s behavior and appearance \u2014 inadmissible character evidence\nThe trial court properly excluded character evidence about changes in defendant\u2019s behavior and appearance after he began to associate with the codefendant because the evidence was not tailored to a particular trait that was relevant in the case. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court erred, exclusion of the evidence was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt, including his confession. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(a)(1).\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7\u00a7 363, 368, 369; Homicide \u00a7 298.\nAdmissibility of evidence of pertinent trait under Rule 404(a) of the Uniform Rules of Evidence. 56 ALR4th 402.\nWhen is evidence of trait of accused\u2019s character \u201cpertinent\u201d for purposes of admissibility under'Rule 404(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 49 ALR Fed. 478.\nOpinion evidence as to character of accused under Rule 405(a) of Federal Rules of Evidence. 64 ALR Fed. 244.\n3. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 90 (NCI4th)\u2014 exhibition of codefendant to jury \u2014 request denied \u2014 waste of time\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the physical exhibition to the jury of a codefendant not on trial with defendant would have been cumulative and a needless waste of time, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 403, where defendant argued that the codefendant\u2019s physical appearance was relevant to prove that he had a dominating and controlling influence over defendant when the crimes were committed, but defendant was not prevented from presenting to the jury the relevant facts about the codefendant\u2019s age, height, weight, appearance, and size compared with defendant\u2019s physical attributes.\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7\u00a7 22, 353.\nAppeal as of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a sentence of life imprisonment entered by Britt (Joe Freeman), J., on 8 August 1995 in Superior Court, Chatham County, upon a jury verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. Defendant\u2019s motion to bypass the Court of Appeals as to his convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree rape was allowed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 1996. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 October 1996.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Thomas F. Moffitt, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nAnn B. Petersen and Wade Barber for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0170-01", "first_page_order": 224, "last_page_order": 228 }