COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Clements 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

JAMES EDWARD MANGOLD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1939-01-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 AUGUST 6, 2002 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY 

J. Peyton Farmer, Judge Designate 

 W. Todd Watson (Hargett & Watson, PLC, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Amy L. Marshall, Assistant Attorney General 

(Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

A jury convicted James Edward Mangold of two counts of rape 

and one count of forcible sodomy. He contends the trial court 

erred in admitting a series of electronic messages that he sent 

to the victim after the incident. He also contends it erred in 

not striking from the presentence report hearsay statements of 

unadjudicated misconduct. Finding no error, we affirm. 

In May 2001, the defendant and the victim began exchanging 

messages over the Internet, e-mails. They met in June and began 

an affair in August. After a trip to the beach over Labor Day, 

the victim decided to end the relationship because of abusive 
conduct by the defendant. The victim terminated the 

relationship, but the defendant insisted on reconciling. On 

September 15, 2000, the defendant persisted in coming to visit 

her, though she told him not to come and went out to meet 

friends to avoid him. 

The defendant found the victim at a bar. When she asked 

him to leave her alone, the defendant responded that he would 

"never leave her alone." Fearful and unsure why he had come to 

see her, the victim sneaked out the back door. Later that 

evening, the defendant again located her. The defendant refused 

to leave her alone, so the victim again sneaked out and this 

time drove home. She locked the door and braced it with a chair 

because the defendant had a key to her house. 

Later that night, the victim awoke in bed to realize the 

defendant was standing over her. He concedes that the victim 

did not want to see him, that she told him not to visit, and 

that he let himself into her home despite the chair against the 

door. The victim testified the defendant refused to leave when 

told to do so, then pushed her onto the bed, and raped her. 

Afterwards when the victim tried to get away, the defendant 

forced her back onto the bed and raped her a second time. Then 

the defendant committed forcible sodomy. The defendant admits 

the sexual relations with the victim, but he maintains the 

victim consented and willingly participated. 

- 2 -
Before leaving the victim's home on the morning of 

September 16, the defendant left a note for the victim. In it 

he thanked her for "letting me come in" and "agreeing to talk." 

The defendant described their "making sweet love" the night 

before, but hoped that she did not make love to him "under false 

pretenses" that they would stay together. The letter 

characterized the victim as the party who initiated the intimate 

evening and the defendant as the party who was terminating the 

relationship. The defendant sent an e-mail to the victim later 

that day that portrayed the incident in the same manner. The 

defendant did not object to the introduction of those two 

messages. 

The defendant did object to admitting a series of messages 

exchanged with the victim after September 16. He contended the 

evidence contained no inculpatory statements and was 

"collateral," "inflammatory and unduly prejudicial," and 

unrelated to the issues. The Commonwealth maintained the 

messages rebutted the defendant's contention that the encounter 

was consensual. The trial court ruled the evidence was 

admissible as a party admission and corroborated the victim's 

testimony that the acts were forced and not consensual. 

"[E]vidence which tends to prove the crime charged is 

admissible though it may necessarily involve misconduct on the 

part of the defendant." Coe v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 83, 87, 

340 S.E.2d 820, 823 (1986) (citations omitted). "An 

- 3 -
out-of-court statement by a defendant that admits or 

acknowledges a fact or facts tending to prove guilt is 

admissible in evidence . . . ." Elmore v. Commonwealth, 22 

Va. App. 424, 429, 470 S.E.2d 588, 590 (1996) (citations 

omitted). Other crimes evidence is admissible if it shows 

defendant's feelings toward the victim, or "proves intent or 

guilty knowledge . . . or negates good faith . . . ." Rodriguez 

v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 277, 280-81, 443 S.E.2d 419, 422 

(1994) (en banc), aff'd, 249 Va. 203, 454 S.E.2d 725 (1995). 

The only issue at trial was whether the victim consented to 

the sexual relations with the defendant. Contrary to the 

considerate tone of the defendant's messages on September 16, 

his subsequent messages reveal a violent, commandeering nature 

that comports with the victim's description of his behavior 

toward her. The defendant asked the victim, "loved my visit 

Friday night didn't you?" and boasted of his "aggressiveness" 

and "power." He proclaimed that he had been treating the victim 

"way too nice," but acceded that she "need[ed] to be dominated 

and controlled." 

The series of e-mail messages contradicted his claim that 

he was breaking off the relationship and revealed his insistence 

on continuing to see her. When the victim responded to a 

message that he was not to come see her, the defendant wrote, 

"We'll be over when I'm tired of you." Again begging him to 

leave her alone, he responded, "you can make it pleasurable or 

- 4 -
you can make it ugly, your choice." He added, "I'm totally 

fearless, totally motivated and don't give a damn about my 

future." 

 "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) (citations omitted). The series of messages is 

relevant to rebut the claim of consensual sex and corroborate 

the victim's testimony. The messages relate to the defendant's 

relationship with the victim, his intent, and his use of force 

to overpower the victim's opposition to his will. They were not 

remote in time or unrelated to the incident. See Collins v. 

Commonwealth, 226 Va. 223, 230, 307 S.E.2d 884, 888 (1983) 

(defendant's statements after pandering charge admissible to 

show course of conduct, intent and knowledge). His messages 

were admissible as admissions; her messages were admissible to 

show the context of his admissions. Swain v. Commonwealth, 28 

Va. App. 555, 560, 507 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1998). 

 Next, we consider whether the trial court erred in refusing 

to strike information from the presentence report. After the 

presentation of evidence at the sentencing hearing, the 

defendant objected to allegations of misconduct made by his 

former wife and former girlfriend. The defendant contends 

admission of the accusations violated "his right to confront the 

- 5 -
witnesses against him, was hearsay, and lacked sufficient 

indicia of reliability." 

 The record does not contain a copy of the presentence 

report or a summary of the evidence to which the defendant 

objected. Nevertheless, the record before us does indicate that 

the probation officer spoke with the defendant's former wife 

about past abuse by the defendant and included the allegations 

in the report. The trial court denied the motion to strike the 

statements from the presentence report. 

 The trial court has broad discretion in determining the 

defendant's sentence and its ruling on the admissibility of 

evidence relevant to punishment will not be disturbed absent a 

clear abuse of discretion. Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 

34, 44, 510 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1999). Such evidence includes any 

"'responsible unsworn or "out-of-court" information relative to 

the circumstances of the crime and to the convicted person's 

life and characteristics.'" Harris v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 

794, 809, 497 S.E.2d 165, 172 (1988) (quoting Williams v. 

Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 584 (1959)). Unadjudicated criminal 

activity is properly considered. Beaver v. Commonwealth, 232 

Va. 521, 530, 352 S.E.2d 342, 347 (1987). 

 "This broad rule of inclusion is tempered by the 

requirement that the information bear some indicia of 

reliability." Moses v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 293, 302, 498 

S.E.2d 451, 456 (1998) (citations omitted). In this case, the 

- 6 -
probation officer making the report to the court interviewed the 

declarant, and the defendant does not contend the information 

contained in the report is inaccurate. 

 Furthermore, any error was harmless. The jury recommended 

the minimum sentence for each offense. The record reveals the 

trial court carefully considered the entire presentence report. 

It noted that the sentence returned by the jury was below the 

minimum suggested by the sentencing guidelines. The trial court 

imposed the statutory minimum sentence. See Lavinder v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 1003, 1005, 407 S.E.2d 910, 911 (1991) 

(en banc); Hall v. Commonwealth, 143 Va. 554, 561-62, 130 S.E. 

416, 419 (1925) (improperly admitted other crimes evidence was 

harmless where guilt of accused clearly established and jury 

imposed minimum sentence). 

We conclude the trial court did not err in admitting the 

series of e-mail messages or in refusing to strike portions of 

the presentence report. Accordingly, we affirm. 

 Affirmed.

- 7 -