Opinion ID: 1058661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Pamela Woods Testimony

Text: At trial, Pamela Woods testified, over Teleguz's objection, that Teleguz had asked Sipe to go with him but to leave their son behind. Teleguz argues that this testimony was irrelevant and prejudic[ial] and its admission was reversible error. At trial, Teleguz objected to this testimony on relevancy and hearsay grounds. The trial court sustained the hearsay objection but never ruled on the relevancy objection. Because the trial court did not issue a ruling on Teleguz's relevancy objection, there is no basis upon which this Court may consider the issue. Rule 5:17(c); Riner, 268 Va. at 325, 601 S.E.2d at 571-72; Lenz, 261 Va. at 462-63, 544 S.E.2d at 305-06. Finally, we do not consider Teleguz's argument that this testimony was prejudicial, because that argument was not presented to the trial court. Rule 5:25; Goins, 251 Va. at 463, 470 S.E.2d at 128.