Opinion ID: 1440383
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opening Door to Third-Party Threats Evidence

Text: Next, Appellant argues that trial counsel substantially harmed his case by questioning Mr. Price, who was in the car with Appellant at the time of the gas station shooting, about his delay in providing a statement to police. According to Appellant, the trial court advised counsel before trial that such a question would open the door for Mr. Price to allege witness intimidation by Appellant's family, to which Mr. Price did eventually testify. Appellant's development of the Pierce prongs consists only of the following: Here, nothing whatsoever was gained by attacking Price's delay in reporting his knowledge to the police. The harm, however, was substantial, as it led to other acts evidence. Petitioner contends that a jury hearing that his relative was arrested for intimidating the witness against him [petitioner] in a murder case had a deleterious effect, both standing alone and in conjunction with the impermissible other acts evidence arising from the use of the [ ] robbery to prove intent. Amended PCRA Petition, filed 1/20/04, at 19-20. See also Appellant's Brief at 30-31 ([A]s is evidenced by the trial strategy, counsel had no strategic or tactical reason for seeking this information.). Although Appellant has arguably pleaded the second Pierce prong by arguing that nothing whatsoever was gained by attacking Price's delay in reporting his knowledge to police, we cannot consider this one-sentence argument to constitute a sufficient development of his claim. See Bracey, supra . Moreover, we agree with the Commonwealth that Mr. Price's accusation of witness intimidation by Appellant's cousin did not prejudice Appellant's defense. Appellant consistently attempted to establish that he shot the victim at the gas station in self-defense, but the victim's gun was still snapped in its holster, and witnesses testified to seeing his hands in the air after Appellant shot him. Natividad, 773 A.2d at 176. Accordingly, Appellant is due no relief on this claim.