Opinion ID: 1059208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admission of evidence seized during execution of search warrant

Text: At trial, Green objected to the admission of evidence seized during the search of his home, specifically the makeshift target, the empty cartridge casings, and the bullets found in the tree trunk. He argued that there was no connection between that evidence and the evidence that was recovered from the crime scene and from Mrs. Vaughan's body during the autopsy. Thus, according to Green, the evidence found at his residence was irrelevant, and its probative value was substantially outweighed by its tendency to cause unfair prejudice. He now assigns error to the circuit court's ruling allowing the admission of that evidence and makes the same argument on appeal. One of the issues at trial was whether Green intended to shoot Mrs. Vaughan or whether the pistol went off, as Green stated to a police investigator. The issue of premeditation was a focal point in his counsel's opening and closing remarks. The fact that the bullets found in the tree trunk and those recovered from Mrs. Vaughan's body were fired from one weapon established not only a nexus between the evidence but also the fact that Green had previously fired the weapon he later used to shoot Mrs. Vaughan. [7] That fact, along with the makeshift target and the empty cartridge casings, suggests that Green knew how to shoot that particular firearm and was thus pertinent to the issue whether the pistol went off. Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove, or is pertinent to, matters in issue. Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 257, 546 S.E.2d 728, 730 (2001). Thus, we conclude that the evidence seized during the search of Green's house was relevant to the issue of premeditation and that the circuit court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.