Ricardo Tinoco-Rivera v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0848214

Victim A.M., born 2003, testified that appellant Ricardo Tinoco-Rivera (her stepfather) sexually abused her repeatedly from about 2012 through April 2019, including digital/penile penetration and requests that she touch his genitals.
Text messages showed appellant soliciting nude photos from A.M.; A.M. identified a pair of pink underwear found by her grandfather as hers and said appellant once asked for her underwear.
Grandfather discovered behind a basement wall two pairs of girls’ underwear, used condoms, and men’s underwear; forensic testing matched sperm DNA on underwear and a condom to appellant and non-sperm DNA to A.M.
After abuse allegations surfaced, $1,400 was transferred from the couple’s joint account to someone in Mexico, a vehicle went missing, appellant fled and was arrested in Louisiana after his phone was traced—circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.
At trial defense counsel attempted to cross-examine A.M.’s mother, Luz Monroy‑Cruz, about her immigration status and possible motivation (e.g., pursuit of a U‑visa); the court sustained objections as irrelevant/hearsay/privileged and limited that inquiry.
Tinoco‑Rivera was convicted of multiple sexual offenses; on appeal he argued the court erred in restricting cross‑examination about Monroy‑Cruz’s potential bias. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding any error harmless given overwhelming evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting cross‑examination of the victim’s mother about her immigration status/U‑visa and thus potential bias	Tinoco‑Rivera: questioning Monroy‑Cruz about immigration/U‑visa was relevant to show motive to cooperate and impeach credibility	Commonwealth: inquiry was irrelevant, hearsay, and privileged; prosecutor represented Monroy‑Cruz was not seeking a U‑visa	Court: assumed arguendo any error but found it harmless — evidence of guilt was overwhelming, so exclusion could not have affected verdict

Lambert v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 740 (2019) (accused has a right to cross‑examine for bias but that right is subject to reasonable limits)
Jin v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 294 (2017) (trial court has discretion to limit scope of cross‑examination for bias)
James v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 95 (1997) (trial judges retain wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross‑examination)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 460 (1993) (right to confront witnesses to show bias is fundamental but not unlimited)
Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411 (2017) (harmless‑error review and principle that review courts should resolve matters on narrowest grounds)
Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194 (2015) (Code § 8.01‑678 requires harmless‑error review)
Salahuddin v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 190 (2017) (standard for non‑constitutional harmless error: reversal only if error influenced trier of fact)
United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) (courts must consider the trial record as a whole and may ignore harmless errors)