Opinion ID: 1886897
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of Karen Schmoyer

Text: During her direct testimony as a witness for the Commonwealth, Schmoyer's mother, Karen, was asked to recall what happened after she learned that her daughter was missing. Karen described herself as [going] into a panic and very nervous ... I remember my mouth was very dry ... my hands were shaking. N.T., 10/26/1994, pp. 663-64. Appellant contends it was error for the trial court to have permitted this testimony regarding Karen's feelings and thoughts when she learned her daughter was believed to be missing, because it was not relevant or material to this case. Even presuming that such testimony regarding feelings and thoughts was not relevant or material to the case, this testimony was limited and did not have the unavoidable effect of depriving Appellant of a fair and impartial verdict. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Begley, 566 Pa. 239, 780 A.2d 605, 624 (2001); Commonwealth v. Weiss, 565 Pa. 504, 776 A.2d 958 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1101, 122 S.Ct. 2303, 152 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2002). Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim of trial court error. Additionally, to the extent Appellant attempts to raise a claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness for failure to object to the admission of Karen Schmoyer's testimony, he fails to explain how trial counsel's strategy was unreasonable or how he was prejudiced by counsel's failure. Pierce, supra .