request for discovery. It asserts that Elliott failed to demonstrate good cause for such discovery because the Commonwealth provided him with a copy of a report concerning Nardone’s death, and Elliott fails to indicate what further documents exist to support his claim. The PCRA court’s ruling is supported by the record and is free from legal error. As recognized by the PCRA court, appellate courts review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Dillon, 592 Pa. 351, 925 A.2d 131, 136 (2007). A trial court may exclude evidence that is irrelevant to the issues presented. Evidence is not relevant “unless the inference sought to be raised by it bears upon a matter in issue and renders the desired inference more probab , 647 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, appellate counsel cannot be
holding that evidence should be excluded where the likelihood that it would confuse the jury and protract the proceedings outweighs its probative value holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to a purported additional suspect where the evidence was speculative and had little or no probative value recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence holding that where the commonwealth presented no evidence linking appellant to injuries such evidence had no probative value to the commonwealths theory of the case holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence that other persons had a motive to kill the victims because inter alia such evidence was speculative