COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Annunziata 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

MAURICE DANIEL REED 

v. Record No. 2664-94-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DECEMBER 29, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

J. Howe Brown, Judge 

 Michael S. Arif (Martin & Arif, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 John K. Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General; Richard B. Smith, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 On appeal from his conviction for murder, robbery, and use 

of a firearm in the commission of a felony, Maurice Daniel Reed 

contends the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to 

testify whether there were any differences in the statements made 

to him by three men allegedly involved in the crime. We find no 

error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 On June 11, 1993, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Melissa 

Trowbridge heard noises outside her home. Looking out into the 

lighted cul-de-sac, she saw a man standing next to a white car, 

holding a gun on a man lying face down in the street. She saw 

the man holding the gun shoot the man lying down in the back of 

the head. The shooter then jumped into the passenger side of the 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

white car and the car drove off. 

 When the police arrived, they found Dale H. Fredericks lying 

dead in the street with his "head . . . just about completely 

blown off." His pants pockets had been pulled out and were 

empty. 

 The next day, Fredericks' car was located in front of Reed's 

apartment. Bloodstains were found on the left rear tire. Latent 

fingerprints of Fredericks and Kamal Muwwakkil were found on the 

car. 

 On June 14, 1993, Reed told Investigator Lyons that "he 

bought the RX-7 for fifteen dollars from a fellow by the name of 

Stick Man over in Southeast Washington . . . on . . . the 12th 

. . . ." The following day, Reed told Lyons that "in the parking 

lot of his apartment building, he met an individual he identified 

as a pipehead and that he purchased the car from him." He told 

Lyons that he knew the car was stolen and that was why he threw 

the keys off the Wilson Bridge into the river. Investigator 

Lyons told Reed that he did not believe him. Reed terminated the 

interview, but returned shortly thereafter. He told Lyons that 

he was at the scene of the crime, but that Cedrick McAllister and 

Kamal Muwwakkil were the ones in the victim's car and that 

Muwwakkil had the shotgun. 

 At trial, Hassan Hargrove testified that he, Reed, 

Muwwakkil, McAllister, and Kenyan Nash got into Reed's station 

wagon at Reed's apartment. Reed brought two shotguns. They were 
- 3 - 

all smoking marijuana. 

 Hargrove testified that while driving on the beltway towards 

Virginia, they saw a white Mazda RX-7, with license plate HIPPOS, 

 and decided to take it. They followed the car onto a 

residential street and parked around the corner from where it 

parked. Reed and Muwwakkil jumped out of the station wagon and 

ran toward the white car. A few seconds later, Hargrove heard a 

gunshot. They saw Reed and Muwwakkil leave in the white car and 

followed in Reed's car. 

 During cross-examination of Investigator Lyons, Reed's 

counsel questioned him regarding statements made by Hargrove, 

Muwwakkil, and Nash. On redirect examination, the Commonwealth 

asked Lyons whether the statements made by those three men 

varied. Lyons replied, "No, Sir. None." Reed objected to the 

question and answer on the ground that they called for and put 

into evidence a conclusion based on hearsay. The trial court 

overruled the objection, holding that Reed had opened this line 

of questioning during his cross-examination. On re-cross, Reed 

again referred to the statements made by Hargrove, Muwwakkil, and 

Nash. 

 "A trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of evidence 

'will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of 

discretion.'" Hunter v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 717, 724, 427 

S.E.2d 197, 202 (1993) (en banc). We find no abuse of discretion 

in the trial court's overruling the objection and receiving 
- 4 - 

Lyons' testimony. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that 

"where an accused unsuccessfully objects to evidence which he 

considers improper and then on his own behalf introduces evidence 

of the same character, he thereby waives his objection, and we 

cannot reverse for the alleged error." Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 

243 Va. 1, 9, 413 S.E.2d 875, 879 (1992). 

 Investigator Lyons' testimony was not hearsay. He did not 

repeat the witnesses' out-of-court statements to prove their 

truth. He simply reported his perception from what he had heard 

as explanation for his development of the case. The jury was 

able to decide for itself whether the statements made by 

Hargrove, Muwwakkil, and Nash varied. 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.