Opinion ID: 1059011
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence concerning Rhonda Robinson's pregnancy

Text: The issue of Rhonda's pregnancy was first raised at a pre-trial hearing when Winston moved the trial court to prohibit the Commonwealth from mentioning anything concerning ... her pregnancy in the opening statement, voir dire or during its case in chief. Winston argued that the death, the violent death, of a pregnant woman is inflammatory and that the fact of Rhonda Robinson's pregnancy had no relevance to the case. The trial court sustained the motion with respect to voir dire and opening statements and reserv[ed] ruling on the admissibility of that fact at trial. Just before Nathan Rorls was called as a witness in the guilt phase of the trial, and out of the presence of the jury, the parties again argued the admissibility of testimony about Rhonda's pregnancy. The Commonwealth, requesting permission to ask Rorls about Rhonda's pregnancy, argued, It is our position that that information should come in as coming through the defendant as  and, again, from a credibility point of view, in that it's information that can be corroborated by independent information. Winston countered that such testimony would be extremely inflammatory and prejudicial, and that its inflammatory and prejudicial nature far outweighs any probative value that it has. The trial court then entertained discussion of whether Rhonda's pregnancy would have been apparent upon viewing her. After examining photographs of Rhonda and determining that her pregnancy was not apparent, the trial court ruled: I'm going to allow it if the witness can testify as to what the defendant told him about the appearance. That's what I'm going to do. I'm going to allow it into evidence on direct. You can cross examine him. Seems to me if it's not apparent, that it's  that it might be effective cross-examination. Winston noted his objection. The Commonwealth did not elicit any evidence of Rhonda's pregnancy on direct examination of Rorls. Only after Winston sought to impeach Rorls' credibility on cross-examination did the Commonwealth seek to rehabilitate Rorls on re-direct examination. Only then was evidence of Rhonda's pregnancy elicited from the witness. Rorls had separately testified on direct and cross-examination that all the information he had concerning the murders came from Winston, whom Rorls called Tootie. Then, the Commonwealth's Attorney engaged in the following exchange with Rorls on re-direct examination. BY MR. DOUCETTE: Q. Do you remember any of the details that he gave you? A. Tootie? Q. Yeah. A. Yeah. Q. What? A. That she was pregnant. Q. She who, she was pregnant? A. The girl. Q. The girl? A. Yeah. Q. What girl? A. The one that he shot, killed. Q. She was pregnant? A. Yeah. Q. Did you know she was pregnant? A. No. Q. How did you know she was pregnant? A. He told me. Q. Who told you? A. Tootie. On recross-examination, Winston attempted to get Rorls to admit that he had received the information about Rhonda's pregnancy from Tywan Turner. Rorls denied obtaining such information from Turner. Winston was, however, able to establish that Rhonda's sister, Angela C. Whitehead (Angela) knew Tywan Turner and it was clear from Rorls' direct examination and cross-examination testimony that he knew Tywan Turner. The Commonwealth recalled Dr. Susan E. Venuti (Dr.Venuti), the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Rhonda Robinson. Winston objected to the Commonwealth's proposal to ask Dr. Venuti about Rhonda's pregnancy. Winston argued that whether Dr. Venuti could substantiate the claim that Rhonda was pregnant was irrelevant. The Commonwealth countered that it was offering Dr. Venuti's testimony to corroborate Rorls' testimony that Rhonda was pregnant. The trial court ruled that Dr. Venuti's testimony on Rhonda's pregnancy was admissible because the subject matter was already in. Winston's objection was noted. Dr. Venuti's testimony consisted of a single question and response: Q. Dr. Venuti, at the time of her death, was Rhonda Robinson pregnant? A. Yes, she was. In its closing statement, the Commonwealth, in a series of statements showing how Rorls' testimony was corroborated by other sources, noted that Nathan tells us [Rhonda] was pregnant. Dr. Venuti confirms that. Three of Winston's assignments of error pertain to the testimony of Rorls and Dr. Venuti concerning Rhonda's pregnancy. First, Winston claims the trial court erred when it allowed Nate Rorls to testify to the pregnancy of Rhonda Robinson. (A.E.28). Second, he asserts the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to present prejudicial and irrelevant evidence concerning Rhonda Robinson's pregnancy. (A.E.29). Third, he complains the trial court erred by allowing the medical examiner to testify concerning Rhonda Robinson's pregnancy. (A.E.33). These assignments of error can be reduced into a single argument that any mention of Rhonda's pregnancy at trial was irrelevant and, assuming that Rhonda's pregnancy has any relevance, its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect on the jury. We must analyze Rorls' testimony and Dr. Venuti's testimony in the context in which they were offered to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting their testimony. For a piece of evidence to be relevant, it must have a logical tendency, however slight, to prove a fact at issue in the case. Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 257, 546 S.E.2d 728, 730 (2001); Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 461, 470 S.E.2d 114, 127, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 887, 117 S.Ct. 222, 136 L.Ed.2d 154 (1996); Charles E. Friend, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 11-1, at 431 (6th ed.2003). According to the Commonwealth, the evidence of Rhonda's pregnancy, introduced by Rorls and Venuti, tended to prove that Rorls was a credible witness. In particular, the Commonwealth attempted to use the evidence of Rhonda's pregnancy to prove that Rorls received all of his information about the murder of Rhonda and Anthony from Winston, as opposed to Tywan Turner, investigators, or Commonwealth's Attorneys, among others. The evidence was offered only on re-direct examination after Winston sought to impeach Rorls' credibility and suggesting that Rorls' knowledge of the murders did not come from Winston. If the evidence of her pregnancy was irrelevant before cross-examination, it certainly was relevant after cross-examination. Having established that the evidence submitted by the Commonwealth concerning Rhonda's pregnancy was relevant and had a logical tendency to prove Rorls' credibility after attempted impeachment, we must consider whether the trial court nonetheless abused its discretion in the admission of this evidence because its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect upon the jury. In Justus v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 971, 979-80, 266 S.E.2d 87, 93 (1980), we held that it was proper to allow the Commonwealth to present evidence that the victim of a murder subsequent to rape was pregnant, where such evidence was one of several pertinent factors to be considered by the jury in determining the amount of force that was used by the defendant to accomplish the rape, and the resistance that was offered by the victim, or that she was capable of offering. We are aware of sister states' opinions suggesting that evidence of a victim's pregnancy may inject unfair prejudice into a trial by evoking an emotional response in the jury, particularly in the guilt phase of a trial. See People v. Martinez, 734 P.2d 650, 652 (Colo.App.1986); People v. Lewis, 165 Ill.2d 305, 209 Ill.Dec. 144, 651 N.E.2d 72, 84 (1995); State v. Moore, 122 N.J. 420, 585 A.2d 864, 887 (1991); Orona-Rangal v. State, 53 P.3d 1080, 1085 (Wyo.2002). However, these courts have also recognized that evidence of pregnancy is not inadmissible per se; its prejudicial effect must be weighed against its probative value. We note that the Commonwealth utilized the evidence for the stated purpose of its introduction, namely, to prove the credibility of Rorls after attempted impeachment by Winston. The Commonwealth did not sensationalize the evidence and made only one reference to it in closing arguments, using it to support the issue of Rorls' credibility. The evidence was clearly relevant for the purpose it was offered. Its introduction was prompted by Winston's attack upon Rorls' credibility and the particularized attack suggesting that Rorls did not obtain information about the murders from Winston. Damaging evidence in the form of admissions by Winston was introduced through Rorls. Rorls' credibility became an extremely important issue in the case. Because Rhonda's pregnancy was not visibly apparent, the question of how Rorls would know became relevant to his credibility. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the prejudicial impact of the testimony outweighed the probative value of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Rhonda's pregnancy.