Opinion ID: 1310716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility Into Evidence of Glass Particles, Keys, and Revolver.

Text: Stamper's objection to the admissibility into evidence of the glass particles seized on the floor of his wife's car, and the keys and the revolver found near his parents' residence is untenable. The case against Stamper was based entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and any such evidence tending to prove guilt was admissible for whatever weight the jury saw fit to accord it. For many years, we have approved the principle that every fact, however remote or insignificant, that tends to establish a probability or improbability of a fact in issue is admissible. Hardy's Case, 110 Va. 910, 922, 67 S.E. 522, 527 (1910); Karnes v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 758, 764, 99 S.E. 562, 564 (1919); Hines v. Commonwealth, 136 Va. 728, 749-50, 117 S.E. 843, 849 (1923). In Huffman v. Commonwealth, 168 Va. 668, 190 S.E. 265 (1937), we said: In determining whether evidence is admissible, much must be left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Especially is this true where the evidence is circumstantial. Where the determination of facts depends upon circumstantial evidence, in no case is evidence to be excluded of facts or circumstances connected with the transaction from which an inference can be reasonably drawn as to the truth of the disputed fact. Id. at 679, 190 S.E. at 270. The challenged evidence was, of course, prejudicial, but it was relevant, it tended to connect Stamper with the crimes, and it was admissible.