Commonwealth v. Proffitt, 292 Va. 626

Commonwealth sought civil commitment of Brady A. Proffitt, Jr. under Virginia’s SVPA after a 2012 rape conviction; jury trial resulted in verdict for respondent and Commonwealth appealed.
Commonwealth’s sole expert, Dr. Doris Nevin, testified she evaluated Proffitt, reviewed records (including police reports), administered the MSI-II, and diagnosed sexual sadism disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and alcohol use disorder; she opined Proffitt was likely to reoffend without treatment.
Commonwealth attempted to call two alleged victims, A.G. (2007 incident) and M.J. (2012 incident), to testify to similar forcible-rape facts; the 2007 charge had been nolle prossed.
Proffitt moved to exclude A.G. and M.J. as irrelevant, prejudicial, and cumulative; the circuit court granted the motion, reasoning the witnesses would not add to the remaining issues and might inflame the jury.
The Commonwealth proffered that the two incidents were similar and five years apart, and that Dr. Nevin could have relied on A.G.’s testimony (or a hypothetical based on it) to strengthen her diagnosis and her opinion on future dangerousness.
Virginia Supreme Court held the exclusion was an abuse of discretion because the witnesses’ testimony was relevant, corroborative, not unfairly prejudicial or needlessly cumulative, and the error was not harmless given the Commonwealth’s reliance on a single expert.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Proffitt's Argument	Held
Admissibility of A.G. and M.J. testimony (relevance to SVPA elements)	Testimony is relevant to diagnosis, M.O., pattern, and likelihood to reoffend; would strengthen expert opinion	Not relevant because Dr. Nevin did not rely on 2007 report; would only inflame jury	Court: Admission was relevant and material to mental abnormality and likelihood-to-reoffend elements; exclusion was error
Unfair prejudice under Va. R. Evid. 2:403	Probative value of eyewitness accounts outweighs any emotional reaction; evidence directly proves issues	Testimony would unfairly inflame jury and invite decision on improper emotional grounds	Court: Prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value; evidence was direct and not unfairly prejudicial
Cumulative evidence / 2:403(b)	Witness testimony is not merely repetitive of expert — it differs in kind and corroborates and strengthens diagnosis	Testimony is cumulative of Dr. Nevin’s review and therefore properly excluded	Court: Evidence was not needlessly cumulative; it added distinct factual detail and corroboration
Harmless-error analysis	Excluded evidence could have affected verdict by corroborating and bolstering expert diagnosis	Exclusion was within trial court’s discretion and harmless given other evidence	Court: Error was not harmless; case relied on single expert and excluded testimony could have changed outcome

Harman v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 288 Va. 84 (2014) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Landrum v. Chippenham & Johnston-Willis Hosps., Inc., 282 Va. 346 (2011) (definitions of abuse of discretion)
Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Dungee, 258 Va. 235 (1999) (broad scope of relevance)
McCloud v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 242 (2005) (relevance of prior sexual offenses to future dangerousness in SVPA cases)
Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 705 (2008) (trial court balances probative value and prejudice)
Lee v. Spoden, 290 Va. 235 (2015) (definition and limits of unfair prejudice)
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (prior violent behavior as indicator of future dangerousness)
Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984) (future-crime predictions rely on multiple variables)
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (context for predicting future dangerousness)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (unfair prejudice concept)
Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107 (2004) (direct evidence rarely excluded as unduly prejudicial)
Davies v. Silvey, 148 Va. 132 (1927) (corroborative evidence principles)
Barkley v. Wallace, 267 Va. 369 (2004) (harmless-error review for excluded evidence)
Massey v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 436 (1985) (definition of cumulative testimony)