Opinion ID: 1699278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Evidence of an alleged arson and escape.

Text: In the first portion of this argument, defendant complains the State elicited information on cross-examination indicating defendant had been arrested when he was about nineteen (19) for arson and that he had remained in jail for two months before the charges were dropped. In addition, when asked why defendant was housed at CCC, Dr. Ware responded that he had been told that he was considered to be an escape risk and dangerous. (R., vol.XV, p. 3674). Defendant asserts this testimony exceeded the scope of his direct examination and constituted the introduction of otherwise inadmissible other crimes evidence. Despite defendant's contention in this regard, our review of the record shows the State's cross-examination was based only on information contained in Dr. Ware's report, which the defense introduced into evidence during its case-in-chief. In this manner, the defense opened the door to the otherwise prohibited testimony. See State v. Edwards, 420 So.2d 663, 675 (La.1982), citing State v. Lane, 292 So.2d 711 (La.1974); State v. Betancourt, 351 So.2d 1187 (La.1977); see also Cmt. ( o ) to LA.CODE EVID. ANN. art. 607 (new evidence code does not change the traditional policy, based on waiver and fair play, permitting freer admissibility of extrinsic evidence after an adverse party has opened the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence). As such, the cross-examination did not exceed the scope of the defendant's presentation of evidence on direct examination. This portion of the argument lacks merit.