Virginia Rape Fairfax Lawyers Violation Code 18.2-61 Force Threat Intimidation
Virginia Rape Fairfax Lawyers Violation Code 18.2-61 Force Threat Intimidation
Lock v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was indicted on a charge of rape, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61 and he filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that the Commonwealth violated his right to a speedy trial under Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-243. The Commonwealth consented to defendant’s motion and the trial court dismissed the charge with prejudice. Less than a month later, defendant was indicted and charged with the felony offense of carnally knowing a child under 14 years of age without the use of force, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-63.
If you are facing Criminal case in Fairfax, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Virginia Rape Fairfax Lawyers
Holdings:
- Generally, to determine whether charges are for the same offense, courts turn to the test established by the United States Supreme Court in its Blockburger decision. The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. In applying the Blockburger test, the two offenses are to be examined in the abstract, rather than with reference to the facts of the particular case under review.
- Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61 requires proof of facts that Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-63 does not require, and vice versa. Section 18.2-61 requires proof of (i) sexual intercourse, (ii) that is accomplished against the complaining witness’s will, (iii) by force, threat, or intimidation, while § 18.2-63 requires proof of (i) carnal knowledge, which includes acts other than sexual intercourse, (ii) with a child between 13 and 15 years old, (iii) without the use of force. Accordingly, rape requires proof of two facts, specifically, sexual intercourse and the use of force, that carnal knowledge does not require. Carnal knowledge requires proof of one fact that rape does not require, specifically, that the victim be between 13 and 15 years old. Carnal knowledge also does not require the act of sexual intercourse or the use of force, required by rape. Therefore, under the traditional of the United States Supreme Court’s Blockburger test, carnal knowledge is not a lesser-included offense of rape.
- Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, giving it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Moreover, the conclusions of the fact finder on issues of witness credibility may be disturbed on appeal only when the Court of Appeals of Virginia finds that the witness’s testimony was inherently incredible, or so contrary to human experience as to render it unworthy of belief. In all other cases, the court of appeals must defer to the conclusions of the fact finder, who has the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. These principles apply in cases involving rape, sodomy, and other sexual offenses, which may be sustained solely upon the testimony of the victim, even in the absence of corroborating evidence.
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.
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.
Forcible Sodomy Madison Virginia Lawyer Element Of Rape Violation
Forcible Sodomy Madison Virginia Lawyer Element Of Rape Violation
Fender v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed from his conviction by the Circuit Court of Madison County (Virginia) for rape in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61, and forcible sodomy in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18. 2-67.1. The Commonwealth’s motion in limine had been granted, allowing the admission of the testimony of two women who described similar crimes allegedly committed by defendant.
Forcible Sodomy Madison Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the accused knowingly and intentionally committed the acts constituting the elements of rape?
Discussions:
Defendant argued that the similar crimes evidence was improperly admitted. The appellate court held that testimony of prior victims of similar sexual crimes was inadmissible to show defendant’s intent toward the victim. Although proof of rape required proof of intent, the required intent was established upon proof that the accused knowingly and intentionally committed the acts constituting the elements of rape, which included engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim, against her will, by force, threat, or intimidation. The lack of consent required for rape involved the victim’s mental state, not the defendant’s. The fact that one woman was raped had no tendency to prove that another woman did not consent. The error was not harmless error. One witness testified that she was a prostitute and defendant was a “regular customer” who once acted in a manner similar to that described at trial. The second witness testified that she was also an escort who was attacked by defendant in a manner similar to that alleged by the victim. The witnesses’ testimony encouraged the inference that defendant committed the charged crimes as he had committed similar crimes in the past.
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.
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.
Minor Solicitation Stafford Virginia Lawyer Felony Violation Delinquency
Minor Solicitation Stafford Virginia Lawyer Felony Violation Delinquency
Prior v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was convicted, in the Circuit Court of Stafford County (Virginia), of solicitation to commit a felony, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-29, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-371. He appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient.
Minor Solicitation Stafford Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant?
Discussions:
Defendant, in his car, approached a 14 year-old girl who was walking along a road. He asked her to have oral sex with him. She refused. He asked her if she wanted a ride, which she also refused, then ordered her to get into his car, which she would not do. Eventually she reached her house, and when her mother appeared, defendant drove away. Solicitation could consist of a course of conduct, intended to induce another to act, that continued over an extended period. The act defendant solicited the victim to commit was a class six felony, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361(A). Defendant was doing more than merely expressing a desire for oral sex, especially when he continued to insist after her refusal and ordered her to get into his car. By soliciting a minor to commit a felony, defendant also encouraged an act which would render her a delinquent, thereby contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
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.
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.
Minor Solicitation Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Intention Distribution Obscene Material
Minor Solicitation Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Intention Distribution Obscene Material
Arnold v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant challenged his convictions from the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Virginia) for three counts of stalking under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3, four counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-371, two counts of distributing obscene material under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374, and three counts of possessing obscene material with the intent to distribute under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.
Minor Solicitation Fairfax Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant threw encouraged a delinquent act?
Discussions:
Over the course of two days, defendant drove through a residential neighborhood throwing allegedly obscene material out his car window at five juvenile girls. The material consisted of telephone sex line advertisements containing sexually explicit photographs and writing. On one occasion, defendant threw an allegedly obscene magazine. The advertisements were introduced into evidence at trial, but the magazine had been destroyed by one girl’s mother. Defendant was convicted in a bench trial of three counts of stalking under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3, four counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-371, two counts of distributing obscene material under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374, and three counts of possessing obscene material with the intent to distribute under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374. On appeal, the court reversed one count of possession with the intent to distribute obscene items, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, finding the evidence insufficient to prove that the magazine defendant threw was obscene or that it encouraged a delinquent act. The court affirmed the remaining 10 convictions.
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.
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.
Rape Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Fear Violence Abusive Father Sexual Intercourse
Rape Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Fear Violence Abusive Father Sexual Intercourse
Commonwealth v. Charles
Facts:
Defendant uncle and defendant aunt appealed from the judgments of the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria (Virginia), which convicted the uncle of the rape of his niece as a principal in the first degree and convicted the aunt of rape as a principal in the second degree. The 15-year-old niece testified that she had intercourse on multiple occasions with the uncle out of fear of violence from him and out of fear of being returned to her abusive father. The court found that sexual intercourse between the uncle and the niece was the result of intimidation by both defendants in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61 (1982).
Rape Alexandria Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred by convicting the uncle of the rape of his niece as a principal in the first degree and the aunt of rape as a principal in the second degree?
Discussion:
On appeal, the court found that an amendment to Va. Code Ann. 18.2-61 (1982) expanded the definition of rape from intercourse by force to include intercourse by force, threat, or intimidation. The court held that intimidation could occur without threats and meant putting a victim in fear of bodily harm by exercising such domination and control of her as to overcome her mind and overbear her will, and that intimidation could be caused by the imposition of psychological pressure on one who, under the circumstances, was vulnerable and susceptible to such pressure. The court held that the fact that the aunt could not be a principal in the first degree did not prevent her conviction as a principal in the second degree. The court found that the aunt’s actions in persuading the niece to submit and in fostering the atmosphere of intimidation supported a finding of constructive presence on the specific occasion that she was not physically present during the intercourse. The court affirmed the conviction of the uncle of rape as a principal in the first degree and the court affirmed the conviction of the aunt of rape as a principal in the second degree.
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.
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.
Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Capital Murder Double Jeopardy
Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Capital Murder Double Jeopardy
Ching v.Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Loudoun (Virginia) finding him guilty of capital murder during the commission of or subsequent to attempted rape and sentencing him to death. The judgment was based on a second indictment against defendant filed after his first trial resulted in remand, by the supreme court, mandating a new trial on a charge of no greater than first degree murder.
Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment for capital murder as violative of defendant’s double jeopardy protection?
Discussion:
In response to numerous assignments of error, the supreme court held, inter alia, that: (1) the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment for capital murder as violative of defendant’s double jeopardy protection; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant’s motion to disqualify the Commonwealth’s attorney based on the fact that a letter defendant sent to the attorney asserted a grossly offensive personal attack on the attorney and thus, created a conflict of interest, since the attorney assured the court that it had not had an effect on his professional judgment; (3) evidence of a rape and attempted murder of a second victim was admissible where the Commonwealth alleged that said acts were interrelated parts of a common criminal plan and, thus, relevant to prove defendant’s identity, motive, and intent as the perpetrator of all the crimes committed in the course of carrying out that plan; (4) the trial court did not err in failing to suppress defendant’s statement given after he freely and knowingly waived his Fifth Amendment right to counsel; and (5) defendant’s sentence was not excessive or disproportionate. he judgment of the trial court 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.
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.
Statutory Rape Norfolk Virginia Lawyer Sexual Intercourse Victim Statement
Statutory Rape Norfolk Virginia Lawyer Sexual Intercourse Victim Statement
Marks v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was indicted and tried for rape. The first count of the indictment charged defendant with statutory rape without force. The second count charged rape by force. There was no evidence other than the victim’s statement that defendant ever had sexual intercourse with her. Defendant was convicted on the first count in the indictment and sentenced to five years in prison. Defendant sought review of a judgment by the Corporation Court of the City of Norfolk (Virginia), which convicted defendant of rape without force that was committed upon a female between the ages of 14 and 16 years old.
Statutory Rape Norfolk Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendant for rape charges?
Discussion:
The court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the trial court did not err in not requiring the Commonwealth to elect on which count it would try defendant. It was permissible for the indictment to contain any number of counts charging the commission of the single offense of rape, stated in different ways so as to meet varying phases of proof that might be offered. The indictment was properly drawn so as to leave it to the jury to determine whether the alleged rape, if any was committed, was accomplished with consent or by force. There was no evidence to denounce the testimony of the victim as improbable, and the circumstances connected with her testimony were fully sufficient to justify the jury in believing that intercourse actually took place. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court
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.
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.
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyer Richmond Offensive Images
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyer Richmond Offensive Images
James v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Police while responding to a fire found chemicals and explosives. Appellant responded that he “was making pyrotechnic devices, rockets and other pyrotechnic type devices.” He gave written consent for police to search the residence and also consented to a search of the computer. The computer contained information concerning child pornography and so the officer obtained a second search warrant before examining the computer further. The pictures were located in a file-sharing program called “M.” The default setting for M is to share files with other users via the Internet, although this computer’s setting had been manipulated not to share files and there was no way to tell who downloaded the pictures or who used the computer at any given time. Officer testified that the “systems registry” showed “X” was a registered owner of the Windows XP software.
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyer Richmond
The officer testified that there is no evidence to suggest that anyone other than appellant used the computer. Another application on the computer showed a user name of “Y.” The computer was not password protected, and anyone could have access to it. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Virginia) convicted defendant of 15 counts of misdemeanor possession of child pornography in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. Defendant appealed.
Issue:
- Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to convict defendant of possession of child pornography?
Discussion:
In order to convict a person of possession of child pornography, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual “knowingly possessed sexually explicit visual material utilizing or having as a subject a person less than 18 years. This court held that evidence at trial was sufficient to convict defendant of possession of child pornography. It was clear that someone had “sought out” child pornography. It was clear that someone “acquired” the offensive images and brought them into appellant’s home from “cyberspace.” The appellant had exclusive control of the residence.
The computer was seized from a residence to which appellant had a key and he only had given consent to search the residence, and he admitted ownership of certain pyrotechnics found on the premises. Further “the registration on the computer tied to his name,” along with appellant’s name being associated with the computer during the time when the computer made one hundred “hits” on child pornography. Most importantly, the computer had “quick desktop access” to the folder containing the images. Using a totality of the circumstances approach, the court found the evidence sufficient to show appellant had control of the residence and the computer. This court hence affirmed the judgment of the trial court which convicted defendant of 15 counts of misdemeanor possession of child pornography in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1.
A Virginia child pornography charge is a very serious crime. The SRIS Law Group Virginia child pornography defense lawyers can defend you against any type of child pornography charge in Virginia. Our Virginia law firm has handled numerous cases of child pornography in Virginia starting from simple possession all the way to distribution of child pornography. Our firm has the experience to defend you in any part of Virginia against any allegation of child pornography in Virginia.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyer today if you have been charged with child pornography in Virginia. We have client meeting locations in Fairfax, Manassas, Richmond, Lynchburg, Loudoun, Fredericksburg & Virginia Beach.
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.
Rape Richmond Virginia Lawyer Discretion Abuse Evidence
Rape Richmond Virginia Lawyer Discretion Abuse Evidence
Carpenter v. Commonwealth
Facts:
The trial court admitted the victim’s complaint of rape under the recent complaint exception as codified in Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-268.2 (1993), even though some 10 months had passed since the alleged rape. The trial court instructed the jury that such evidence was purely corroborative and not independent evidence of rape itself. Defendant appealed a conviction entered in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Virginia) for raping a minor child in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61. Defendant claimed that the victim’s complaint of rape was not admissible under Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-268.2.
Rape Richmond Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether trial court had abused its discretion in admitting the evidence?
Discussion:
The court reasoned that § 19.2-268.2 admitted evidence of recent complaints of rape as corroborative evidence. Addressing the timeliness of the complaint, the court held that admission of the evidence was within the trial court’s discretion, and timeliness was for the trier of fact to consider in weighing the evidence, and the victim’s credibility. The court determined that the trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting the evidence because of the reasons for the delay. The court found that the victim’s fear of not being believed, fear that her father would have hurt defendant and gone to jail himself, and the victim’s belief that she was at fault for the rape were consistent with the circumstances surrounding the rape, and provided justified reasons for the delay. The court affirmed defendant’s conviction for raping a minor child because under the recent complaint rule the victim’s complaint of rape was admissible when she gave valid reasons for having delayed her rape complaint, and it was only admitted as corroborative evidence of the rape.
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.
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.
Attempted Rape Lexington Virginia Lawyer Habeas Corpus Voluntary
Attempted Rape Lexington Virginia Lawyer Habeas Corpus Voluntary
Jemicard v. Commonwealth
Facts:
A prisoner entered a guilty plea to an indictment charging him with attempted rape, and he was convicted on the basis of that plea. Before accepting the plea, the trial court conducted an extensive examination of the prisoner concerning the voluntariness of the plea and the prisoner’s understanding of its nature and effect. When the prisoner was not allowed to appeal his conviction, the trial court granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent penitentiary superintendent challenged an order from the Corporation Court of the City that awarded a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner prisoner on the ground that he had been denied his right to appeal his conviction for attempted rape.
Attempted Rape Lexington Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether an accused who is convicted upon a plea of guilty is entitled to appeal his conviction?
Discussion:
This court reversed, holding that it was error for the trial court to award the writ. The prisoner was sentenced in proceedings devoid of jurisdictional questions to a term within the range fixed by law pursuant to a judgment of conviction based on a plea of guilty voluntarily and intelligently entered. That plea waived all defenses other than those jurisdictional. The court concluded that because the conviction had been rendered upon a voluntary guilty plea and the punishment fixed by law was imposed in a proceeding free of jurisdictional defect, there was nothing to appeal. This court held that that the petitioner was not entitled to appeal his conviction. It was error, therefore, for the trial court to award the petitioner a writ of habeas corpus.
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.
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.
