State v. Collins, 478 S.E.2d 191 (N.C. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Collins, 478 S.E.2d 191 (N.C. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 16× by 13 distinct cases, 2004–2026 · 2 courts↑ Rising · …it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence. at p. 193 ✓
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 · …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. ✓
76 citation events (68 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: NAACP v. Gaston Cnty. (ncctapp, 2026-03-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) NAACP v. Gaston Cnty. (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bossian v. Chica
N.C. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
CHICA Opinion of the Court We also note that Father argues the trial court erred to the extent it relied upon Mother’s counsel’s argument regarding Father’s previous lawsuit “against a different paramour of [Mother], causing [Mother] to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees.” Father correctly notes that “it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Mohammed
N.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
App. at 270 , 652 S.E.2d at 697 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Blue v. Bhiro
N.C. · 2022 · confidence medium
Notably, “it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Blue v. Bhiro
N.C. · 2022 · confidence medium
Notably, “it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Eddings
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
The affidavit merely states “Buncombe County Anti-Crime Taskforce Agents were able to advise SCET when Jones would be leaving the residence . . . and advised them the direction Jones would be traveling.” It is not clear whether SCET members 3 “[I]t is axiomatic that arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Eddings
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
The affidavit merely states “Buncombe County Anti-Crime Taskforce Agents were able to advise SCET when Jones would be leaving the residence . . . and advised them the direction Jones would be traveling.” It is not clear whether SCET members 3 “[I]t is axiomatic that arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996) (citations omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Sarno v. Sarno (3×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Collins , 345 N.C. at 173 , 478 S.E.2d at 193 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hardy
N.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
He’s at Caledonia Work Farm, which is where he’s spent the last two or three years, and he’s not gotten in any trouble, he tells me -- and he works with chickens; and his sister lives in Wayne County, and he feels like, and I feel like, once he gets out he can get a job in Wayne County or Lenoir County working with chickens. “[I]t is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Estate of Skinner
N.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
However, the clerk’s findings of fact necessarily had to be based on his assessment of the competent evidence. “[I]t is -8- IN RE: SKINNER Opinion of the Court axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Basmas v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
It “ ‘is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.’” State v. Roache, 358 N.C. 243, 289 , 595 S.E.2d 381, 411 (2004) (quoting State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Chamberlain
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, “it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Foster
N.C. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
As our Supreme Court has noted, “it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Headen
N.C. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
As our Supreme Court has stated, “it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Plummer v. Plummer
N.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, “it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Bare
N.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, the statements of counsel are not evidence. “[I]t is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Valladares
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Stat. § 15A-1443(a) (2003): A defendant is prejudiced by errors relating to rights arising other than under the Constitution of the United States when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial[.] Furthermore, our Supreme Court has indicated that such errors are harmless when there is “overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, including his confession.” State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 174 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Garcia (2×)
N.C. · 2004 · confidence medium
The decision whether to exclude relevant evidence under Rule 403 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, Braxton, 352 N.C. at 186 , 531 S.E.2d at 444 , 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,’ ” Richmond, 347 N.C. at 429 , 495 S.E.2d at 686 (quoting State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 174 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1996)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hannah
N.C. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 797 (2000), 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. Richmond, 347 N.C. at 429 , 495 S.E.2d at 686 (quoting State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 174 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1996)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lloyd
N.C. · 2001 · confidence medium
The decision whether to exclude relevant evidence under Rule 403 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. at 186, 531 S.E.2d at 444 , 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. Richmond, 347 N.C. at 429 , 495 S.E.2d at 686 (quoting State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 174 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1996)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Richmond (2×)
N.C. · 1998 · confidence medium
"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. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 174 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Robinson
N.C. · 1997 · confidence medium
“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. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 174 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Perez (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996) (explaining that “it is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Hutchens (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
We cannot simply assume that the program serves its goals and purposes when determining whether the State’s interest outweighs the significant burden that lifetime SBM imposes on the privacy rights of recidivists subjected to it.” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996) (“[I]t is axiomatic that arguments of counsel are not evidence.” (citations omitted)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Hutchens (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
We cannot simply assume that the program serves its goals and purposes when determining whether the State’s interest outweighs the significant burden that lifetime SBM imposes on the privacy rights of recidivists subjected to it.” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 173 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1996) (“[I]t is axiomatic that arguments of counsel are not evidence.” (citations omitted)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Walston (2×)
N.C. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 174 , 478 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1996) (ruling that character evidence inadmissible under Rule 404(a)(1) “focused on factual information about defendant’s behavior and appearance rather than pertinent traits of his character”); Bogle, 324 N.C. at 202 , 376 S.E.2d at 752 (holding that “the traits of truthfulness and honesty are not ‘pertinent’ ... to the crime of trafficking in marijuana”); Squire, 321 N.C. at 548 , 364 S.E.2d at 358 (noting that generally the trait of being law-abiding is a relevant character trait); see also State v. Roseboro…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of North Carolina
v.
Roger Scott Collins
525A95.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Dec 6, 1996.
478 S.E.2d 191
1996 N.C. LEXIS 658
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.
Mitchell.
Cited by 34 opinions  |  Published
MITCHELL, Chief Justice.

Defendant,' 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.

The State’s 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’s 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.

Police officers questioned the victim’s 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 “Roger.” Roger said he was at[*173] Top’s 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’s “cut” was to be $6,000, Bennie’s car, and $500.00 cash “up front.”

By 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.

The prosecutor’s statements at the sentencing of codefendant DeGraffenreidt were not representations of fact used to prove the basis for DeGraffenreidt’s plea under N.C.G.S. § 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’s 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.

By his next assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding testimony from Eric Cates relating to defendant’s character traits and changes in his character after he began his association with codefendant DeGraffenreidt.

Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1) provides that a defendant may offer character evidence as long as he tailors it “to a particular trait that is relevant to an issue in the case.” State v. Squire, 321 N.C. 541, 546, 364 S.E.2d 354, 357 (1988). In the context of this rule, “ ‘pertinent’. . .[*174] is tantamount to relevant.” Id. at 547, 364 S.E.2d at 358. The evidence defendant sought to develop with Cates’ testimony focused on factual information about defendant’s 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’s guilt, including his confession. Thus, any possible error would have been harmless. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) (1988). This assignment of error is overruled.

Finally, 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’s physical appearance was relevant to prove that he had a dominating and controlling influence over defendant when the crimes were committed.

Rule of Evidence 403 provides, in pertinent part, that “ [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.” N.C.G.S. § 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’s ruling. Defendant was not prevented from presenting to the jury the relevant facts about DeGraffenreidt’s age, height, weight, appearance, and size compared with defendant’s 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.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.

NO ERROR.