Lonnie Ray Myers v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                    COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Willis, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton
    Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
    LONNIE RAY MYERS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.   Record No. 0651-00-1                JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
    JUNE 5, 2001
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
    Frederick H. Creekmore, Judge
    James B. Melton for appellant.
    Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
    (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
    for appellee.
    On appeal from his conviction of committing forcible sodomy
    upon a child under the age of thirteen years, in violation of Code
    § 18.2-67.1, Lonnie Ray Myers contends that the trial court erred
    in admitting irrelevant, hearsay testimony by the victim's mother.
    Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    I.   BACKGROUND
    In October 1998, Myers invited A.M., the nine-year-old
    victim, and K.M., her eight-year-old sister, to his house.     The
    two girls and Myers played "the monster game" where the girls
    were "explorers . . . and [Myers] tries to eat [them] like he's
    a big fierce monster."     A.M. testified that, during the course
    * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    of playing the game, Myers "pulled down [her] pants and
    underwear," held her legs apart, and used his fingers to
    separate her "vagina" and licked it.
    At trial, the Commonwealth elicited from A.M.'s mother,
    over Myers' objection, testimony regarding changes in A.M.'s
    behavior following the alleged sexual abuse.      The following
    colloquy occurred:
    [COMMONWEALTH]
    Q: How has [A.M.] been dealing with
    this since it's all come to light?
    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, I
    object here on relevance grounds. I don't
    see why that is relevant.
    THE COURT:    I overrule the
    objection.
    THE WITNESS: Since this has come
    to light, [A.M.] wishes she were dead. She
    says that to me constantly throughout the
    past ten months. She doesn't understand why
    it happened to her.
    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: This is all
    hearsay, too. So I'm objecting. It's based
    on [A.M.'s] statements to her.
    [COMMONWEALTH]: Your Honor, she
    is her mother. She is able to determine how
    her daughter -- the feelings that she has,
    how her reactions and her behavior has been
    since this has all come to light. That's
    what the Commonwealth is trying to elicit
    from her mother.
    THE COURT: I think under those
    circumstances that that would be a proper
    question. Therefore, I overrule your
    objection.
    - 2 -
    [COMMONWEALTH]
    Q:    If you could, continue, please.
    A: Okay. She would wake up in the
    middle of the night with nightmares. She's
    had flashbacks. She doesn't trust hardly
    anybody anymore.
    Q:    This has been very hurtful?
    A: To say the least. This wasn't a
    stranger. This was someone that we all
    trusted. So, I mean, I can't handle it.
    How can she?
    Q: And what have you done for [A.M.]
    since this has all come to light in order to
    alleviate that pain for her?
    A:    She's been seeing therapists.
    She's on   antidepressants to help with her
    suicidal   thoughts. I mean, she's ten years
    old, and   she wants to kill herself.
    The jury convicted Myers of committing sodomy on a child
    under thirteen years of age, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1.
    II.     THE TESTIMONY
    "The admissibility of evidence is within the broad
    discretion of the trial court, and a ruling will not be
    disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion."
    Blain v. Commonwealth, 
    7 Va. App. 10
    , 16, 
    371 S.E.2d 838
    , 842
    (1988).   Myers contends that the trial court erred in admitting
    irrelevant, hearsay testimony of the victim's mother.      We
    disagree.
    A. RELEVANCE
    Evidence is generally admissible if it is both relevant and
    material.    See Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth, 
    5 Va. App. 188
    , 196,
    - 3 -
    
    361 S.E.2d 436
    , 441 (1987).     "Evidence is relevant if it has any
    logical tendency, however slight, to establish a fact at issue
    in the case."   Ragland v. Commonwealth, 
    16 Va. App. 913
    , 918,
    
    434 S.E.2d 675
    , 678 (1993).
    Applying this standard, we cannot say that the trial court
    abused its discretion in ruling that the mother's testimony was
    relevant and in allowing her to testify about A.M.'s behavior
    following the alleged sexual abuse.        The testimony addressed
    A.M.'s mental state resulting from the alleged assault.        A.M.'s
    mental state was a circumstance tending to prove a material
    issue in the case, namely whether she had been sexually abused.
    Therefore, it was relevant. 1
    B.    HEARSAY
    "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the
    declarant while testifying at trial, which is offered to prove
    the truth of the matter asserted."         Clark v. Commonwealth, 14
    1
    Our decision to treat this testimony as relevant accords
    with other jurisdictions that have decided the issue. See State
    v. Reser, 
    767 P.2d 1277
    , 1279 (Kan. 1989) (reasoning that
    victim's behavior subsequent to reported assault is relevant
    corroborative evidence); State v. Dube, 
    598 A.2d 742
    , 746 (Me.
    1991) (holding that evidence of changes in victim's personality
    and behavior was relevant); State v. Messa, 
    542 A.2d 1071
    ,
    1074-75 (R.I. 1988) (holding that changes in victim's behavior
    was admissible); State v. Cosey, 
    873 P.2d 1177
    , 1182 (Utah Ct.
    App. 1994) (holding that evidence of a drastic change in the
    victim's behavior is relevant circumstantial evidence that a
    traumatic experience has occurred); State v. Denny, 
    617 A.2d 425
    , 427 (Vt. 1992) (holding that evidence of changes in
    victim's behavior and personality after the incident was
    material to whether the sexual abuse had occurred).
    - 4 -
    Va. App. 1068, 1070, 
    421 S.E.2d 28
    , 30 (1992).    "Unless it is
    offered to show its truth, an out-of-court statement is not
    subject to the rule against hearsay and is admissible if
    relevant."     Church v. Commonwealth, 
    230 Va. 208
    , 212, 
    335 S.E.2d 823
    , 825 (1985).
    In Church, the Supreme Court addressed the statement of a
    young victim who told her mother that sex was "'dirty, nasty and
    it hurt.'"     
    Id. at 211-15, 335
    S.E.2d at 825-27.   The Court
    ruled that the child's statement was not hearsay.      See 
    id. The Commonwealth did
    not offer the child's
    statement to prove that sex is "dirty, nasty
    and it hurt." Rather, it was offered to
    show the child's attitude toward sex, an
    attitude likely to have been created by a
    traumatic experience. Although the child
    made no prompt report of the crime, the
    Commonwealth was entitled to prove, by
    circumstantial evidence, that she had been a
    victim. Thus, the child's out-of-court
    statement was not hearsay, but was
    admissible as circumstantial evidence
    tending to establish the probability of a
    fact in issue.
    
    Id. at 212, 335
    S.E.2d at 825-26.
    Similarly, in this case, the challenged testimony was not
    offered for the truth of its content.    It was offered only to
    show A.M.'s behavioral changes following the event, changes
    likely to have resulted from a traumatic experience.
    Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
    discretion in admitting the mother's testimony into evidence.
    - 5 -
    For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial
    court.
    Affirmed.
    - 6 -