the discretion of the trial court and we will reverse on appeal only upon abuse of that discretion. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 552 Pa. 621, 717 A.2d 468, 477 (1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 827, 120 S.Ct. 78, 145 L.Ed.2d 66 (1999). During the penalty phase, the Commonwealth may offer evidence to rebut a defendant’s mitigating evidence of good character. Commonwealth v. Harris, 550 Pa. 92, 703 A.2d 441, 451 (1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1015, 119 S.Ct. 538, 142 L.Ed.2d 447 (1998) (upholding Commonwealth’s introduction of several statements made by an appellant to rebut appellant’s character evidence that he was a nice person and amenable to rehabilitation); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 521 Pa. 188, 555 A.2d 846, 858 (1989), cert, denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 215, 112 L.Ed.2d 175 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Appellant intended to
holding commissions review of appellants termination was an action of quasijudicial character holding that appellant was prejudiced by 20year delay in prosecution and that the commonwealths inactivity was grossly negligent holding that error harmless because appellant failed to identify any specific harm from improper introduction of evidence holding that commonwealths introduction of statements made by appellant and his black panther membership to rebut appellants character evidence that he was a peaceful and genial man holding appellant could not complain of the introduction of an index card into evidence when his counsel first offered the card in evidence