When a trial court instructs a jury to disregard inadmissible testimony, a party is not entitled to a new trial unless there is "'manifest probability of prejudice'" and "the prejudicial effect of an improper remark or question is overwhelming and cannot be cured by a cautionary instruction." Gross v. Stuart, 297 Va. 769, 774-75 (2019) (quoting Lowe v. Cunningham, 268 Va. 268, 272 (2004));
"[T]he responsibility for balancing the competing considerations of probative value and prejudice rests in the sound discretion of the trial court," and "exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of clear abuse." Gross v. Stuart , 297 Va. 769, 771, 831 S.E.2d 726 (2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under an abuse of discretion standard, "a reviewing court ... does not reverse merely because it would have come to a different result in the first instance."
"'[T]he responsibility for balancing the competing considerations of probative value and prejudice rests in the sound discretion of the trial court,' and 'exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of clear abuse.'" Townes v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 299 Va. 34, 53 (2020) (quoting Gross v. Stuart, 297 Va. 769, 771 (2019)). "Evidence is relevant if it 'tends to cast any light upon the subject of the inquiry.'"
See Harvey v. Commonwealth, 76 Va.App. 436, 475 (2023); Gross v. Stuart, 297 Va. 769, 774 (2019).
The circuit court's "ruling denying a motion for mistrial will be set aside on appellate review only if the ruling constituted an abuse of discretion." Gross v. Stuart, 297 Va. 769, 774 (2019) (quoting Allied Concrete Co. v. Lester, 285 Va. 295, 308 (2013)).