Opinion ID: 1384330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: weston's animosity toward his mother

Text: Weston next asserts error in the solicitor's question to Leslie Fuller as to whether or not Fuller knew of anyone else, other than Franchey's son, who had any animosity toward Mrs. Franchey, contending this injected the solicitor's personal opinion into the matter, and was not based upon the evidence. We disagree. Contrary to Weston's contention, immediately prior to this question, the solicitor questioned Fuller as to Franchey's disappearance. Fuller testified she had gone to check on Franchey around 10:00 a.m. on the morning of August 8, 1998, and gotten no answer when she knocked at the door. She continued calling and left a message on Franchey's answering machine. The following morning, after several phone calls to Franchey's telephone, Fuller contacted the apartment security officer, Jarvis, and they went and did a walk-through of the apartment. She finally got in touch with Weston at about 4:40 that afternoon and he expressed no concern over his mother's disappearance, telling her she met some man and she ran off with him. She left me a note on the coffee table. Fuller continued to testify: A. I don't recall if it was Monday or Tuesday, but one of those days he came back into my office. Q. And what was his demeanor when he entered your office that Monday or Tuesday? A. He was very disheveled and he was sweating profusely. His eyes were huge. And he just stood over my desk and he said, to begin with, I was really angry with my mother, and now I'm just scared. Contrary to Weston's assertion, the above testimony is some evidence of animosity upon which the solicitor properly based her question. Accordingly, we find the trial court properly overruled his objection.