Opinion ID: 2059905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admissibility of Evidence of Van Doa's Address

Text: Finally, Doa contends that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Detective Wyatt regarding Van Doa's address in Virginia. The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Osborn, 364 Pa.Super. 505, 528 A.2d 623 (1987); see In the Interest of Hyduke, 371 Pa.Super. 380, 538 A.2d 66 (1988). Evidence is admissible provided that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial impact. Commonwealth v. Hill, 340 Pa.Super. 155, 489 A.2d 889 (1985). The inquiry therefore is whether the evidence is so prejudicial that it `may inflame' the jury to make a decision based upon `something other than the legal propositions relevant to the case.' Commonwealth v. Conway, 368 Pa.Super. 488, 494, 534 A.2d 541, 544 (1987), citing Commonwealth v. Shain, 324 Pa.Super. 456, 464, 471 A.2d 1246, 1249 (1984). The testimony regarding Doa's address was relevant to explain the victims' difficulty in identifying him, a person unknown to the victims prior to the robbery. Accordingly, Doa's final claim is without merit. Judgments of Sentence affirmed.