Furthermore, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the prejudicial effect of Benton's, Anderson's, and Swimpson's testimony was outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. We disagree and address the issue on the merits. As discussed above, Benton's testimony was admissible to prove modus operandi . The admission of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing of abuse of discretion. 13 Va. App.
Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency to prove an issue in a case.
In this case, appellant's statement to the police regarding his relationship with Benton was relevant because it corroborated Benton's admissible testimony. Therefore, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting appellant's statement into evidence. Finally, appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing Arnold Smith to testify about the victim's statement that he was going to appellant's house. The trial court ruled Smith's testimony was hearsay, but ruled it was admissible, over appellant's objection, to show the victim's state of mind. The Commonwealth argued the victim's state of mind was relevant because it corroborated the Commonwealth's contention that he went to appellant's house.