P19hf56 Y0nktrzu3 Jsaqx Oe42lnmi9r

Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Abduction Murder Burglary

Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Abduction Murder Burglary

Frank v. Commonwealth
Facts:

Defendant challenged a judgment of the Circuit Court of Loudoun County (Virginia), which convicted him for capital murder, armed robbery, rape, abduction with intent to defile, and burglary.

Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Abduction Murder Burglary

Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Abduction Murder Burglary

Issue:
  • Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s request to suppress?
Discussion:

Defendant was convicted for capital murder, armed robbery, rape, abduction with intent to defile, and burglary. Defendant challenged his convictions and the court affirmed. The court held that no reversible error was committed. The police officer, who was interviewing defendant but not searching for physical evidence against him, observed what appeared to be incriminating bloodstains on defendant’s shoes through inadvertence. Thus, the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s request to suppress. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in seating a juror. The court also held that the imposition of sentences against defendant for the rape and robbery underlying his capital murder conviction did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The judgment was affirmed.

The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case.

A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.

Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Comments are closed.

Powered by: Wordpress