abuse of discretion standard in Virginia

2026“The abuse-of-discretion standard [also] includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” Carter, 293 Va. at 543-44 (alteration in original) (quoting Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 260 (2008)). “[A trial] court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” Porter, 276 Va. at 260 (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996)).

2026“The abuse-of-discretion standard [also] includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” Id. at 543-44 (alteration in original) (quoting Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 260 (2008)).

2026ANALYSIS “[W]e review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence using an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a trial court’s decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion.” Kenner v. Commonwealth, 299 Va. 414 , 423 (2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 197 (2010)).

2026“Generally, we review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence using an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a trial court’s decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion.” Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 197 (2010).

2026“The abuse-of-discretion standard [also] includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” Carter, 293 Va. at 543-44 (alteration in original) (quoting Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 260 (2008)). “[A trial] court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” Porter, 276 Va. at 260 (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996)).

2026The abuse-of discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 260 (2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996)). “[A] court’s judgment when exercising its contempt power is presumed correct and will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous or lacks evidentiary support.” Orndoff v. Commonwealth, 304 Va. 419 , 430 (2025).

2026“It has long been recognized and established that a court is invested with power to punish for contempt.” Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 442 (2010) (quoting Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 291, 294 (1965)). “[W]e review the exercise of a court’s contempt power under an abuse of discretion standard.” Orndoff v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, ___ (Sept. 25, 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting Petrosinelli v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., 273 Va. 700, 706 (2007)).

2026An appellate court will “review the exercise of a court’s contempt power under an abuse of discretion standard.” Orndoff v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, ___ (Sept. 25, 2025) (plurality opinion) (quoting Petrosinelli v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., 273 Va. 700, 706 (2007)); see also Sapp v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 415, 425 (2002) (noting that the “use of contempt powers is clearly subject to the discretion of the trial court”).

2026The abuse of discretion standard means a “circuit court ‘has a range of choice, and that its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law.’” Lucas v. Riverhill Poultry, Inc., 300 Va. 78 , 93 (2021) (quoting Landrum v. Chippenham and Johnston-Willis Hosps., Inc., 282 Va. 346, 352 (2011)).

2026The abuse of discretion standard requires this Court to consider the “range of choice” available to the trial court, leaving its decision undisturbed as long as it “stay[ed] within that range and [was] not influenced by any mistake of law.” Landrum v. Chippenham & Johnston-Willis Hosps., Inc., 282 Va. 346, 352 (2011) (quoting Kern v. TXO Prod.

2020“The abuse-of-discretion standard [also] includes a review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” Id. at 543-44 (quoting Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 260 (2008)).

2018Rather, we consider only whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s action.”2 Id. at 543, 800 S.E.2d at 501 (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 , 685 S.E.2d 634, 644 (2009)). 2 “The abuse-of-discretion standard [also] includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” Carter, 293 Va. at 543-44 , 800 S.E.2d at 501 (quoting Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 260 , 661 S.E.2d 415, 445 (2008)). -5- In this case, the circuit court admitted four of the victim’s prior convictions and excluded six other instances of alleged misco

2026Therefore, the abuse of discretion standard “necessarily implies that, for some decisions, conscientious jurists could reach different conclusions based on exactly the same facts—yet still remain entirely reasonable.” Hamad v. Hamad, 61 Va. App. 593, 607 (2013).

2026The abuse of discretion standard therefore “necessarily implies that, for some decisions, conscientious jurists could reach different conclusions based on exactly the same facts—yet still remain entirely reasonable.” Hamad v. Hamad, 61 Va. App. 593, 607 (2013).

2026Testimony of Detective Harper Finally, Contreras asserts, “The trial court erred in allowing Detective Pattye Harper to testify about how her investigation led her to bring additional charges against Appellant.” As we noted supra, the Supreme Court has stated, “In a non-constitutional context, we review a trial court’s rulings on whether to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Swann, 290 Va. at 197 (citing Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 , 229 (2013)).

2025Admissibility of the Prior Conviction Order “When reviewing a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, we apply an abuse of discretion standard.” Bista v. Commonwealth, 303 Va. 354 , 370 (2024).

2025“A ‘[trial] court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence’ is also reviewed ‘under an abuse of discretion standard.’” Id. (quoting Herndon v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 138, 143 (2010)).

2024“This Court reviews ‘a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a circuit court’s decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion.’” Lambert v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 740 , 749 (2019) (quoting Herndon v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 138, 143 (2010)).

2026Under the abuse of discretion standard, a “trial judge’s ‘ruling will not be reversed simply because an appellate court disagrees.’” Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 741, 753 (2005) (quoting Henry J.

2016The abuse-of-discretion standard “means that the trial judge’s ruling will not be reversed simply because an appellate court disagrees.” Tynes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 17, 21 , 635 S.E.2d 688, 689 (2006) (quoting Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 741, 753 , 607 S.E.2d 738, 743 , adopted on reh’g en banc, 45 Va. App. 811 , 613 S.E.2d 870 (2005)).

2016The abuse-of-discretion standard “means that the trial judge’s ruling will not be reversed simply because an appellate court disagrees.” Tynes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 17, 21 , 635 S.E.2d 688, 689 (2006) (quoting Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 741, 753 , 607 S.E.2d 738, 743 , adopted on reh’g en banc, 45 Va. App. 811 , 613 S.E.2d 870 (2005)).

2016The abuse-of-discretion standard “means that the trial judge’s ruling will not be reversed simply because an appellate court disagrees.” Tynes v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 17, 21 , 635 S.E.2d 688, 689 (2006) (quoting Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 741, 753 , 607 S.E.2d 738, 743 , adopted on reh’g en banc, 45 Va. App. 811 , 613 S.E.2d 870 (2005)).

2025An appellate court “review[s] a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence using an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a trial court’s decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion.” Harman v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 288 Va. 84 , 92 (2014) (quoting John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 274 Va. 581, 590 (2007)).

2023Generally, “[t]his Court will not overturn a circuit court’s exercise of its discretion in determining whether to admit or exclude evidence unless the record demonstrates that it abused its discretion.” deCamp v. deCamp, 64 Va. App. 137, 147 (2014); see also John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 274 Va. 581, 591 (2007) (“In reviewing the trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony, we apply an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2026“That interpretation, however, must be reasonable, and we will ‘apply an abuse of discretion standard.’” Bajgain v. Bajgain, 64 Va. App. 439, 453 (2015) (quoting Roe v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 453, 458 (2006)).

2025“That interpretation, however, must be reasonable, and [this Court] will ‘apply an abuse of discretion standard.’” Bajgain v. Bajgain, 64 Va. App. 439, 453 (2015) (quoting Roe v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 453, 458 (2006)).

2014Mother contends the trial court erred in concluding that her motion to enjoin was “not well-grounded in fact.” “[W]e apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing a trial court’s award or denial of a sanction.” Oxenham v. Johnson, 241 Va. 281, 287 , 402 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1991).

2014Mother contends the trial court erred in concluding that her motion to enjoin was “not well-grounded in fact.” “[W]e apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing a trial court’s award or denial of a sanction.” Oxenham v. Johnson, 241 Va. 281, 287 , 402 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1991).

2025Had he not been “denied” the opportunity for such impeachment, appellant contends, his further questioning of J.S. “could have had an effect on the trial court’s reliance on and acceptance of her testimony.” “Appellate courts review evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard.” Hicks v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 255 , 275 (2019) (quoting Campos v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 690, 702 (2017)).

2024“Appellate courts review evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard.” Campos v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 690, 702 (2017) (quoting Boone v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 383, 388 (2014)).

2026Testimony of Detective Harper Finally, Contreras asserts, “The trial court erred in allowing Detective Pattye Harper to testify about how her investigation led her to bring additional charges against Appellant.” As we noted supra, the Supreme Court has stated, “In a non-constitutional context, we review a trial court’s rulings on whether to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Swann, 290 Va. at 197 (citing Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 , 229 (2013)).

2026“The abuse of discretion standard draws a line—or rather, demarcates a region—between the unsupportable and the merely mistaken, between the legal error . . . that a reviewing court may always correct, and the simple disagreement that, on this standard, it may not.” Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 1 , 10-11 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Reyes v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 133 , 139 (2019)). “[T]he abuse of discretion standard requires a reviewing court to show enough deference to a primary decisionmaker’s judgment that the [reviewing] court does not reverse merely because it would hav

2026“The abuse of discretion standard draws a line—or rather, demarcates a region—between the unsupportable and the merely mistaken, between the legal error . . . that a reviewing court may always correct, and the simple disagreement that, on this standard, it may not.” Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 1 , 10-11 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Reyes v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 133 , 139 (2019)). “[T]he abuse of discretion standard requires 5 Cunningham’s assignment of error asserts that the evidence did not support his convictions for attempted strangulation, attempted abduction, and anima

2026“The abuse of discretion standard draws a line—or rather, demarcates a region—between the unsupportable and the merely mistaken, between the legal error . . . that a reviewing court may always correct, and the simple disagreement that, on this standard, it may not.” Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 1 , 10-11 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Reyes v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 133 , 139 (2019)).

2026“The abuse-of-discretion standard [also] includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” Carter, 293 Va. at 543-44 (alteration in original) (quoting Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 260 (2008)). “[A trial] court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” Porter, 276 Va. at 260 (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996)).

2026Specifically, he argues that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value.6 We disagree. “[W]e review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence using an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a trial court’s decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion.” Anderson v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 396, 402-03 (2018) (quoting Carter v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 537, 543 (2017)).

2025This is the crux of the abuse of discretion standard, and directly stated: no such abuse occurred here. (“Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 564 (2016)).

2025This is the crux of the abuse of discretion standard, and directly stated: no such abuse occurred here. (“Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 564 (2016)).

2025It is, of course, 5 Citing Fisher v. Salute, 51 Va. App. 293, 303 (2008), Paul acknowledges that “[w]hen trial courts have jurisdiction and authority to enter an order, a trial court’s exercise of its contempt power is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” See also Orndoff v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, ___ (Sept. 25, 2025) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard).

2025It is, of course, 5 Citing Fisher v. Salute, 51 Va. App. 293, 303 (2008), Paul acknowledges that “[w]hen trial courts have jurisdiction and authority to enter an order, a trial court’s exercise of its contempt power is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” See also Orndoff v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, ___ (Sept. 25, 2025) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard).

2026“We review a trial court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing under an abuse of discretion standard.” Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 777, 785 (2013).

2025“We review a court’s decision to deny a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere under an abuse of discretion standard.” Spencer v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 183, 186 (2017) (citing Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 777, 785 (2013)).

2025“The trial court has ‘broad discretion in giving or denying instructions requested,’ and we review those decisions under an abuse of discretion standard.” Barney v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 604, 609 (2019) (quoting Gaines v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 562, 568 (2003) (en banc)).

2025“The trial court has ‘broad discretion in giving or denying instructions requested,’ and we review those decisions under an abuse of discretion standard.” Barney v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 604, 609 (2019) (quoting Gaines v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 562, 568 (2003) (en banc)). -4- But we review de novo whether a granted instruction “accurately states the relevant law.” Watson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 197 , 207 (2019) (quoting Payne v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 855, 869 (2016)).

2024It necessarily follows that “the abuse of discretion standard requires a reviewing court to show enough deference to a primary decisionmaker’s judgment that the court does not reverse merely because it would have come to a different result in the first instance.” Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 , 212 (2013) (quoting Evans v. Eaton Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 514 F.3d 315, 322 (4th Cir. 2008)).

2024It necessarily follows that “the abuse of discretion standard requires a reviewing court to show enough deference to a primary decisionmaker’s judgment that the court does not reverse merely because it would have come to a different result in the first instance.” Lawlor, 285 Va. at 212 (quoting Evans v. Eaton Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 514 F.3d 315, 322 (4th Cir. 2008)).