Opinion ID: 1059512
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: testimony regarding cooley's power of attorney

Text: During cross-examination of Penny's sister, Linda, Burns attempted to elicit testimony regarding why Cooley revoked her power of attorney naming Penny as Cooley's attorney-in-fact. The court sustained the Commonwealth's objection. However, the court allowed cross-examination to establish that there was a new power of attorney, a revocation, and it was at the request of Mrs. Cooley. Later, during his case-in-chief, Burns called Kermit L. Racey, Cooley's attorney, and attempted to ask Racey why Cooley had revoked her power of attorney. The court again sustained the Commonwealth's objection. Burns later proffered Racey's testimony that there were two reasons why Cooley revoked her power of attorney. The first reason was because Penny lived too far away to take care of her mother's needs, and the second one was the fact that a judgment had been entered against Cooley on a promissory note that Penny had signed by using her mother's power of attorney. The proceeds of the loan evidenced by the note were for Penny's benefit. On appeal, Burns contends that the excluded evidence should have been admitted to show that Penny had a motive to murder her mother. However, the jury heard evidence from Linda and Racey that Cooley had revoked the power of attorney. Burns also introduced into evidence a notice that a judgment entered against PENNY M. COOLEY & TERSEY COOLEY (PENNY COOLEY (BURNS) POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR TERSEY) in West Virginia had been docketed in Shenandoah County. Thus, we conclude that, if there was error in excluding the reasons why Cooley revoked the power of attorney, it was clearly harmless.