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. 

 

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

designated for publication.

 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 
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 -