This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 16 -
C. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to admit evidence that
Pearson knew a protective order had been entered against Berry.
Pearson also asserts that the trial court erred in refusing admission of evidence
demonstrating Pearson’s knowledge of the protective order limiting Berry’s contact with his son.
He bases this contention upon two arguments. First, he contends that because Pearson’s knowledge
of the protective order factored into his decision-making process and the formation of probable
cause to arrest Berry, it was relevant and material evidence. Second, he argues that preventing the
jury from hearing about the protective order allowed the Commonwealth to argue disingenuously
that Berry was a concerned father, thus portraying him as a sympathetic victim to the jury. We
disagree.
“All relevant evidence is admissible . . . .” Va. R. Evid. 2:402. “Evidence that is not
relevant is not admissible.” Id. “Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight,
to establish a fact at issue in the case.” Utz v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 411, 418 (1998)
(quoting Ragland v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 913, 918 (1993)). “‘Relevant evidence’ means
evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact in issue more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence.” Va. R. Evid. 2:401.
Whether Pearson had probable cause to arrest Berry is irrelevant because, as discussed
above, the attempted arrest was illegal because it occurred in Berry’s home without a warrant.
Since the entire question of probable cause is irrelevant, Pearson’s knowledge of the protective
order factoring into the formation of probable cause and Pearson’s decision to attempt to arrest
Berry is also irrelevant. The trial court did not err in excluding this irrelevant and therefore
inadmissible piece of evidence. Thus, the ruling of the trial court is affirmed.
Finally, Pearson made no objection to the Commonwealth’s argument that Berry was a
concerned father. Rule 5A:18 precludes our review of any error the trial court was not given an
opportunity to cure. Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19, 26 (2016) (“The rule requires litigants to Jump to an indexed page (18 of 18)