Opinion ID: 1439460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Amber Green

Text: The third testimony Appellant claims was improperly allowed is that of Amber Green. Appellant objected to Amber's testimony that her dad was abusive to her brother and her mother, and that he had once held a gun to her mother's head and told her to say her prayers. During trial, Appellant objected to the State's questions regarding her father's abuse, claiming that it constituted improper testimony of prior bad acts. The trial court overruled the objection under Rule 404(b). Just as with Joshua's testimony, the trial court allowed Amber's testimony as being relevant to Appellant's control over his family. As noted above, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing control testimony. Amber's statements are just as prejudicial as those made by Joshua, and were improperly allowed. There was no relevance or basis for allowing continual testimony that Appellant was abusive and controlling.