Where defendant, during his direct testimony, gave the jury a misleading impression of the nature of the property on his person at the time of his arrest, he opened the door to evidence concerning a crack pipe that had been previously precluded by the court's Sandoval ruling. It should be noted that the court specifically cautioned the defense to be wary of any testimony which might open the door to permit such cross-examination. Accordingly, the court properly exercised...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
