Opinion ID: 2279726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Karlitsky Evidence

Text: Next, appellant argues that the trial court erred in precluding the defense from offering the testimony of a private investigator that Adik Karlitsky, the alleged Mr. X, had been involved in a staged robbery of his own jewelry store at the Leo Mall for the purpose of defrauding his insurance company. Karlitsky was never charged in that robbery, in which no one was injured. As discussed above, a trial court's ruling on an evidentiary matter will only be reversed on a finding of an abuse of discretion. LaCava, supra . The trial court found that the proffered testimony was entirely collateral to the proceedings. [18] Given that appellant failed to offer any evidence that there was any logical connection between the Slobotkin and Gutman murders and this dissimilar case, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony regarding the Leo Mall jewelry store robbery.