Opinion ID: 1058661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Pete Sipe, Jr.

Text: Over Teleguz's objection, the Commonwealth asked the victim's father, Pete J. Sipe, Jr., (Pete Sipe) whether his daughter ever spoke to him about Ivan paying child support. Pete Sipe testified that his daughter told him Teleguz wanted her to terminate her demand for child support and he was going to try to take their child. Teleguz argues on appeal that this testimony was hearsay and that the trial court erred in admitting it. We agree. The witness' testimony consisted of a narration by one person of matters told him by another. TechDyn Sys. Corp. v. Whittaker Corp., 245 Va. 291, 300, 427 S.E.2d 334, 340 (1993) (quoting Williams v. Morris, 200 Va. 413, 416-17, 105 S.E.2d 829, 832 (1958)). In the absence of any applicable exception to the hearsay rule which would have rendered the testimony admissible, we hold that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony. See Scruggs v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 736, 745-46, 99 S.E. 518, 521 (1919)(holding that testimony regarding an alleged conversation of the deceased with a witness (but not in the presence of the accused) was hearsay). We nonetheless conclude, based on our review of the record, that the error was harmless. To the extent the testimony established that Teleguz was upset that he had been ordered to pay child support to Sipe, it was cumulative, as this fact was also established through the testimony of other witnesses. For this reason, the trial court's admission of the testimony was harmless error. Code § 8.01-678.