Opinion ID: 1058243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Admission of Statements by Avent

Text: Thomas argues that the trial court allowed Major Roberts to testify about two statements made by Avent. The trial court ruled on Thomas' motion in limine by stating that neither side would seek to introduce any portion of the statements of codefendant Avent ... without filing a motion in limine and getting a further ruling from the Court. The two statements attributed to Avent to which Thomas assigns error are: 1. Major Roberts testified that Thomas stated to him that she asked [Avent] if he had anything to do with [her father's death]. And [Avent] said that [the victim], being her father, was a piece of shit, that he took care of it, but he never said, yes he did it. 2. Major Roberts testified that he went back to see [Thomas] about obviously some discrepancies, and [Avent]'s comments that he had given [him] in the interview certainly didn't line-up with what [Thomas] had said. So [Major Roberts] went to re-interview her and debrief her on those comments. Thomas never objected at trial to the second statement and consequently waived her objection on appeal. Rule 5:25. We note as well that there is no statement made by Avent that was introduced on this subject. There was simply the observation by Major Roberts that the two co-defendants' stories didn't line-up. With regard to the first statement at issue, the Court of Appeals analyzed this question of admissibility under traditional hearsay rules. See Thomas v. Commonwealth, Rec. No. 0202-08-2 (Dec. 16, 2008). Certainly the trial court understood the objection in this manner. A fair reading of the record reveals that Thomas' objection to this statement addressed confrontation questions under the Sixth Amendment as well. However, the distinction is of no importance in the context of this case. The recitation of Avent's opinion that Thomas' father was a piece of shit most assuredly was not offered for the truth of the matter stated. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078, 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985). The recitation that Avent said he took care of it, is the only portion of the statement that has any potentially objectionable material. However, in light of Thomas' own testimony about what Avent did to her father, there is absolutely no question that if it were error to admit it, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Zektaw, 278 Va. at 139, 677 S.E.2d at 56; Pitt, 260 Va. at 695, 539 S.E.2d at 78 (2000); see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).