Although the record does not establish how much time elapsed between the victim's murder and the child's statement to Burch, the child's limited capacity to fabricate and the evidence that he remained visibly distressed to each person who handled him indicates that his statement was sufficiently reliable to be admitted as an excited utterance. He specifically challenges the admissibility of the child's statement, the evidence that he was wearing a blood-stained shirt and an unchanged diaper, and the evidence that he had dried mucous around his nose and was in a dazed state. He argues that the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative value. 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. 7 Va. App.
Evidence is admissible if it is both relevant and material.
Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to establish a fact at issue in the case. 6 Va. App. On appeal, a trial judge's ruling that any relevant evidence outweighs any incidental prejudice will be reversed only on a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the evidence challenged by appellant was relevant and that the prejudice did not outweigh its probative value. The child's statement was relevant to the identity of the murderer and the causation of the victim's injuries.