Suppose the defendant is on trial for murder. He argues he shot the victim in self-defense. The State elicits testimony from the victim’s father that the victim, who lived at home with his parents, was “always a happy guy.” The father states that he does not allow guns in his home and that, to his knowledge, the victim did not have a gun with him on the day he was shot or have a gun at any other time. Counsel for the defendant then asks the father: After your son died, did you see pictures on his cell phone of him with his friends holding guns? The State objects. The defendant argues that, while the evidence would otherwise be inadmissible, the State opened the door to its admission. How should the trial court rule? What does it mean to open the door? The rule commonly referred to as opening the door applies when one party’s evidence and arguments, in the context of the full record, create a misleading impression that requires correction with additional material from the other side. See Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. 140, 152 (2022). The rule permits the introduction of evidence that explores, explains, or rebuts the misleading evidence -- even when the responsive evidence would not otherwise be admissible. See, e.g., State v. Albert, 303 N.C. 173 (1981) (applying principle to allow State to ask defendant, who testified on direct examination that he told police officers he was willing to take a polygraph examination, whether [...]
Faculty Coordinators
