A jury convicted the appellant of first-degree murder for the stabbing death of his wife. In affirming that verdict, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued several critical evidentiary rulings. First, the Court held that the trial court properly excluded the appellant from calling a psychiatrist who treated him weeks after the crime. The appellant claimed that the doctor would not testify regarding the appellant’s state of mind at the time of the killing, nor would the appellant seek to assert a diminished capacity defense based upon a mental disorder. Instead, the psychiatrist would be a fact witness regarding a diagnosis made after the crime was committed. The Superior Court ruled that the appellant’s proffer was nearly identical to the role that psychiatric evidence plays in a diminished capacity defense to show that the defendant lacked the mental capacity of premeditation and deliberation such that he could not form a specific intent to kill. And to allow that evidence for a purpose other than to prove diminished capacity would confuse the jurors. Thus it was excluded correctly under Pa.R.Evid. 403. The Court also agreed with the trial court when it permitted the Commonwealth to call a rebuttal witness who smoked the same marijuana blunt that the appellant claimed had been tainted and caused him to commit the crime. The Superior Court then ruled that the appellant failed to adequately develop his claim that Commonwealth was permitted to offer evidence of prior domestic violence unfettered throughout the trial. But the Court noted that the appellant only cited one brief exchange that defense counsel initiated. Without further reference to the record, the appellant’s claim did not merit relief. Finally, the court found that the appellant waived an otherwise meritless challenge to evidence of a prior harassment conviction being introduced.