Before trial, a hearing was held on a motion in limine, filed by appellant, seeking to prevent the Commonwealth from introducing evidence of the DNA analysis. This analysis compared the DNA in the semen recovered from the T-shirt with the DNA of the three codefendants. The results eliminated appellant and Smith as possible sources of the semen, but found the DNA to be consistent with Wood's DNA profile. The trial court overruled the objection. 7 Va. App.
Evidence is generally admissible if it is both relevant and material.
5 Va. App. Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to establish a fact at issue in the case. The DNA evidence, including the contested finding with respect to Woods, corroborated the testimony of the victim by supplying scientific analysis of the physical evidence which supported her version of the events. Therefore, this evidence was both relevant and material. Appellant complains, for the first time on appeal, that because his name appears on the DNA test report, he was unconstitutionally denied a fair trial.