Thomas Bartholomew Simpson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0311162

Simpson obtained a protective order against appellant Thomas Simpson after threatening texts; months later he allegedly broke into her home at ~1:30 a.m., struck her boyfriend with a pipe, and conversed with the couple’s young children.
During the incident Simpson called 911; a portion of that recording (with a child saying “daddy” audible in the background) was admitted over appellant’s objection.
Simpson had preserved screenshots of multiple text-message threads from 2014–2015; the trial court excluded some screenshot sets as too remote or inflammatory and admitted others as relevant to motive, identity, and intent.
At trial the jury convicted appellant of armed statutory burglary, entering the home of a person protected by a protective order, and assault and battery.
On appeal appellant challenged admission of (1) the 911 recording portion containing the child’s background remark as hearsay/prejudicial and (2) several admitted screenshots for lack of foundation, remoteness, and undue prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of child’s audible remark on 911 call	Commonwealth: recording is present-sense impression and the whole recording is admissible; background utterance is part of event	Simpson (appellant): the child’s statement is inadmissible hearsay and unduly prejudicial	Even assuming the child’s utterance was hearsay, admission was harmless because Simpson’s testimony independently established a child said “daddy” (cumulative evidence)
Admissibility/authentication of text-message screenshots	Commonwealth: Simpson authenticated screenshots by testifying how she saved them and identifying personalized content tying messages to appellant and the parties’ disputes	Simpson (appellant): screenshots lack foundation, could be fabricated, are remote, and are unduly prejudicial	Trial court did not abuse discretion; admitted only screenshots with adequate foundation and probative value; excluded those too remote or inflammatory

Scott v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 380 (reciting appellate-review standard and stating facts in light most favorable to prevailing party)
Proffitt v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 626 (discussing cumulative testimony and weighing probative value)
Atkins v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 1 (preponderance standard for authenticity of electronic evidence)
Lafon v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 411 (remoteness in time considered in relevance analysis)
Greenway v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 147 (improper admission of cumulative evidence not reversible error)