The district court has broad discretion in controlling the opening statements and reviewing courts will not interfere unless discretion has been abused. Discretion is abused only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to comment in her opening statement on an anticipated defense, where that defense had been disclosed by the defendant's attorney on the record.
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove any material fact.
To be admissible, evidence must be confined to the issues but need not bear directly upon them. To render evidence of collateral facts competent, there must be some logical connection between them and the inference or result they are designed to establish. A trial court's ruling of the relevancy of evidence is discretionary and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. While it is true that an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time, a party who invites error cannot then complain or take advantage of it on appeal. Opinion filed April 3, 1998.