Opinion ID: 1652270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stephenson's Prior Testimony.

Text: The propriety of admitting Stephenson's prior testimony, in which he implicates Parker in the shooting of Baker, involves many of the same concerns. But Parker does not offer any argument regarding the authentication of the tapes. [65] Rather, Parker only objects to the introduction of the prior testimony on Crawford grounds. Again, we accept Parker's contentions that Stephenson's prior testimony was both testimonial and hearsay. But we conclude that the testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause under Crawford and Giles . Again, the Commonwealth presented evidence from Coffey and Wright that tended to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Parker was responsible for (or at least acquiesced in) Stephenson's inability to be present to testify and that Parker's intent was to kill Stephenson so that Stephenson would be unavailable to testify in Parker's trial. The burden then shifted to Parker to show credible evidence to the contrary. Parker has, again, not satisfied that burden because he has not pointed us to any specific credible evidence. So we conclude the trial court's decision to permit the playing of Stephenson's prior testimony was neither clearly erroneous nor an abuse of discretion.