This appeal is from Scott Randell Walden’s conviction of murder and possession of a firearm during commission of a crime. 1 The State adduced evidence at trial showing that after Walden and his father, the victim, quarreled about the use of the victim’s truck, Walden took a rifle outside and fired through a window, wounding his father fatally in the back of his head. Walden took the truck and drove to a friend’s house, wiping and discarding the rifle on the way, and called 911 from there. A neighbor who heard the shot found the victim still alive, and he lived until after the police arrived, but did not speak. Walden initially told the police he was not involved in the shooting, then claimed his rifle fired the fatal shot accidentally, then testified at trial that his father threatened him and moved toward him with *163 fists clenched, at which point Walden picked up his rifle, went outside, and shot his father through the window. Other witnesses testified that Walden and his father, prior to the shooting, had discussed the life insurance Walden would receive if his father died, and that Walden had asked a witness some weeks before the shooting whether, if someone broke into the house, Walden would still get the insurance proceeds and the furniture in the house.
The issues Walden raises on appeal concern his unsuccessful efforts to introduce evidence of specific instances of his father’s violent conduct toward others. Our review leads us to conclude that no error occurred in the exclusion of that evidence.
1. Having reviewed the record, we find the evidence sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Walden guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder and possession of a firearm during commission of a crime.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. When Walden gave notice of his intent to present evidence of the victim’s previous acts of violence toward others, the trial court correctly ruled that the evidence would not he admissible unless Walden first made a prima facie showing of justification.
Strong v. State,
(a) Walden contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he did not make the required prima facie case of justification. In
Strong,
noting that a defendant wishing to present evidence of the victim’s violence against third parties must make a prima facie case of justification, this Court cited
Chapman v. State,
(b) Contrary to Walden’s arguments on appeal, the trial court’s insistence that Walden establish a prima facie case of justification did not amount to a requirement that Walden testify. Although Walden is correct that
Dubose v. State,
(c) Because Walden had not satisfied the threshold requirements for admitting evidence of the victim’s acts of violence against others, the trial court prohibited any mention of such evidence in Walden’s opening statement. We find no error in that ruling because Uniform Superior Court Rule 10.2, “Opening Statements in Criminal Matters,” provides that “[d]efense counsel’s statement shall be restricted to expected proof by legally admissible evidence, or the lack of evidence.” Since Walden did not present a prima facie case of justification and, therefore, could not present legally admissible evidence on the issue, he had no right to refer in his opening statement to prior instances of the victim’s violence toward third parties. See also
Cargill v. State,
(d) Finally, Walden complains of the trial court’s ruling that the State would have a right to cross-examine him if he chose to testify in an effort to make his prima facie case of justification. OCGA § 24-9-20 (b) specifically provides that a defendant who elects to be sworn and testify is subject to cross-examination as are other witnesses. See also
Leonard v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crimes were committed on August 29, 1994, and Walden was indicted on October 12, 1994, for murder, felony murder, and possession of a firearm during commission of a crime. Walden’s trial commenced on February 20, 1995, and concluded on February 23, 1995, with a verdict of guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Walden to life imprisonment for murder and to a consecutive five-year term for possession of a firearm during commission of a crime. A motion for new trial filed on March 15, 1995, was denied on September 5, 1995. Pursuant to a notice of appeal filed September 14, 1995, the appeal was docketed in this Court on February 7, 1996, and was submitted for decision on April 1, 1996.