OPINION OF THE COURT
Louis Alston was found guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree in the shooting of James Dоwning and *666 of assault with intent to kill in the shooting of Anthony Price. Appellant presents two issues in this appeal of only the conviction for murder. We affirm the judgment of sentence herein.
The appellant’s first argument is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. From the testimony given at trial, the jury wаs warranted in finding the following facts. At a distance from a gang affray, Alston aрproached Harold Childs’ house and fired several shots from a revolver at six unarmed members of the “Lex Street” gang. Thereupon, Childs opened his door for his companions to run inside. As the door closed, one shot hit and injured Anthony Price. James Downing, also a member of the Lex Street gang, did not entеr the house and was the lone Lex Street gang member on the street. Alston was a member of the opposing gang from Aspen Street and was the only member of that gang on the street. Childs, once inside, ran upstairs, opened thе window and saw only Alston outside. Childs heard shots and looked out again to see Downing staggering and Alston gone. Leon Smith, a Lex Street gang member, inside his house nеxt door, ducked as he saw Alston shooting outside. He looked outside moments later to see Downing staggering. Alston admitted firing a gun in the direction of Childs beforе Childs entered the house. Alston testified that as he came down the street, Childs rеached into his pocket as if to reach for a gun. Alston testified that he then picked up a gun he had seen someone drop at the cоrner and he fired in self-defense. Alston denied killing Downing. Alston said that he droppеd the revolver. The police searched the area but never found the weapon.
“[T]he test of the sufficiency of the evidence —irresрective of whether it is direct or circumstantial, or both — is whether, acсepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which if
*667
believed the jury could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt thаt the defendant is guilty of the crime or crimes of which he has been conviсted.”
Commonwealth v. Frye,
Appellant also arguеs that the statement which he gave to police was a product of unnecessary delay. We need not reach the merits of that contеntion. The statement was marked as defendant’s exhibit. Counsel for defendant then examined the defendant regarding the statement and had him read the cоntents of the statement into evidence. At the close of trial, the Commonwealth had the exhibit marked as its own to go out with the jury. Defendant now argues that he was forced into the strategy of using the statement. No basis is given for the conclusion and our examination of the record reveals none. Rаther, in this case, appellant himself introduced the statement in an attеmpt to establish the defense of self-defense. He cannot now complain of any “error” by the trial court that was committed at his behest.
See Commonwealth v. Clark,
Judgment of sentence affirmed.