Opinion ID: 2336320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Shooting incident with third party

Text: Candie Bray, Appellant's sister, testified on behalf of Appellant. On direct examination, she testified that Appellant was afraid of the York family, that bad blood existed between Appellant and the York family, that the Yorks were a large family in Marshall County, and that even Audrey was afraid of members of her own family. Defense counsel then asked her if she was surprised Appellant went to Canada to which she replied she was not. On cross examination the Commonwealth asked Candie who in the York family Appellant was afraid of. She replied that he was afraid of Mary because she was out to get him. The Commonwealth responded that it was Appellant who had assaulted Mary and continued to question Candie concerning the events of this assault which involved a shooting incident for which Appellant was criminally charged. On redirect, Appellant's counsel asked Candie if she knew that Appellant was only convicted of disorderly conduct and that others present had guns with them. Candie replied no to each of these. Appellant contends that Candie's statement about Mary did not permit the Commonwealth to advance a line of questioning concerning why Mary was out to get him. The Commonwealth disagrees arguing that it opened the door to such questioning. Candie's statement that Mary was out to get him did indeed open the door to further questioning regarding the meaning of the statement. Although defense counsel asked several questions regarding the shooting incident and the relationship between Appellant and the York family and his fear of them, the questioning allowed by the trial court did not amount to an abuse of discretion. [19]