COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Benton, and Overton 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

WILLIAM RAY LAYNE 

v. Record No. 0682-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JANUARY 16, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BOTETOURT COUNTY 

George E. Honts, III, Judge 

 Terry N. Grimes (King, Fulghum, Snead, Nixon & 

Grimes, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. 

 Steven Andrew Witmer, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 William Ray Layne was convicted of capital murder of a child 

under the age of twelve in the commission of an abduction with 

the intent to defile under Code § 18.2-31(8) and abduction with 

intent to defile under Code § 18.2-48. The judge sentenced him 

to life imprisonment on each offense, as recommended by the jury. 

 Layne appeals his convictions on the grounds that the trial 

court erred in admitting hearsay testimony. Finding no error, we 

affirm the convictions. 

 At trial the mother of the victim testified that Layne told 

her about a story that a former cellmate had told him. The story 

concerned the abduction and rape of a young girl, and was 

recounted by Layne at the house of the victim two weeks before 
- 2 - 

the crime. The defense objected on hearsay grounds but was 

overruled by the trial judge. 

 Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in court to 

prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. Hamm v. 

Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 150, 155, 428 S.E.2d 517, 521 (1993). 

"If a statement is offered for any purpose other than to prove 

the truth or falsity of the contents of a statement, such as to 

explain the declarant's conduct or that of the person to whom it 

was made, it is not objectionable as hearsay." Fuller v. 

Commonwealth, 201 Va. 724, 729, 113 S.E.2d 667, 671 (1960). 

 In the case at bar, the truth of the story holds no 

importance. Layne could have concocted the entire story and the 

relevance would be the same: that this thought was on his mind 

at this particular time. The contents of the story were in no 

way asserted to be true or even related to the defendant. The 

sole purpose of the evidence was to show that the defendant 

actually said these words at that time. "If the declaration is 

offered solely to show that it was uttered, without regard to the 

truth or falsity of its content, the declaration is not excluded 

by the hearsay rule." Bradshaw v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 374, 

380, 429 S.E.2d 881, 88 (1993); Speller v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. 

App. 437, 446, 345 S.E.2d 542, 548 (1986). 

 Determining that a hearsay statement is offered to prove a 

proposition other that the truth of the statement does not cure 

the hearsay problem completely. Estes v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. 
- 3 - 

App. 520, 523, 382 S.E.2d 491, 492 (1989). The proposition to be 

proved must be relevant to the issues at trial. Id. "Evidence 

is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to 

prove a fact in issue in the case." Jenkins v. Winchester Dep't 

of Social Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1186, 409 S.E.2d 16, 21 

(1991); Harrell v. Woodson, 233 Va. 117, 122, 353 S.E.2d 770, 773 

(1987). 

 The elements of the offenses charged included the intent to 

defile. Layne's thoughts and statements made while near the 

victim at a proximate time to the crimes are relevant to his 

intent. Even single instances that by themselves may seem 

immaterial or irrelevant may combine to lead a reasonable mind 

irresistibly to a logical conclusion, and thus become relevant. 

Hope v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 381, 386, 392 S.E.2d 830, 833 

(1990) (en banc); Peoples v. Commonwealth, 147 Va. 692, 704, 137 

S.E. 603, 606 (1927). 

 We find that the trial court did not err in admitting the 

witness' testimony, and we affirm the convictions. 

 Affirmed.