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.
Sexual Abuse Salem Virginia Lawyer Assault Intentional Infliction
Sexual Abuse Salem Virginia Lawyer Assault Intentional Infliction
Facts:
On January, 1985, plaintiff son “x” filed a Motion for Judgment against his father, “B” alleging causes of action arising from sexual abuse. A voluntary nonsuit was taken in that case in 1986. The present Motion for Judgment was filed on 1986, again alleging causes of action arising from sexual abuse when the son was a minor. The Motion for Judgment contains three counts, namely battery; sexual assault; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The father filed a Plea in Bar on the grounds that the statute of limitations for all three causes of action has now run.
Sexual Abuse Salem Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
Whether the son’s right was barred by limitation and whether the retroactive application of § 8.01-249(6) violates the father’s due process rights?
Discussion:
The court accepted the father’s plea in bar. The court found that, as the son was a minor at that time, the two-year statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-229(A)(2)(a) until he reached the age of majority in 1982. The court also found that the son had knowledge of the fact and cause of his injuries on or before 1988 because he sought help for psychological problems from a counselor. The court further determined that the son’s right to bring a cause of action lapsed in 1990. The court noted that retroactive application of Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-249(6) would violate the father’s due process rights.
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.
Child Pornography Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Possession Evidence Knowledge
Child Pornography Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Possession Evidence Knowledge
Green v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of the City of Fairfax (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.
Child Pornography Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Possession Evidence Knowledge
Issue:
- Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to convict him of possession of child pornography?
Discussions:
Defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him of possession of child pornography. Specifically, he contended that the Commonwealth failed to prove he knowingly possessed the images contained within the computer. Defendant also alleged that the images were “hidden” in the computer. The appellate court concluded that the record supported the reasonable inference that defendant used the computer and had knowledge and control over its contents. Among other things, the computer, located in a residence over which defendant had exclusive control, contained “quick desktop access” to the folder containing the images, thus defeating defendant’s argument that the images were “hidden.” In addition, the systems registry on the computer revealed defendant as a registered owner of the operating system, and there was a software default setting that had been manually set to disallow file sharing, establishing the user’s control and management of the files.
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.
Sodomy Virginia Criminal Solicitation Violation Lawyers Wythe County
Sodomy Virginia Criminal Solicitation Violation Lawyers Wythe County
Walker v. Commonwealth
Facts:
The Wythe County Circuit Court (Virginia) accepted defendant’s conditional guilty plea and entered a judgment that found him guilty of solicitation to commit oral sodomy in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-29, regarding criminal solicitation, and Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361, regarding crimes against nature. Defendant appealed.
Sodomy Virginia Criminal Solicitation Violation Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the defendant can be made guilty of criminal solicitation?
Discussions:
Defendant went into a men’s restroom located in a department store. The restroom was freely accessible to the public, including children. Defendant entered the handicapped stall. He then left it, approached a stall occupied by an undercover police officer, and peered into it. The undercover police officer asked what he wanted. Defendant then told the undercover police officer that he wanted an act of oral sodomy. The undercover police officer asked again to confirm what defendant had said and defendant repeated his request. Defendant was charged with violations of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-29, regarding solicitation, and Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361, regarding crimes against nature. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and reasoned that Lawrence, which protected private consensual sodomy, did not apply because defendant’s conduct was in a public place. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea. On appeal, the appellate court found that Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361 was not facially unconstitutional and was not unconstitutionally overbroad. It also found that defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge to his claim was waived since he had not raised it in 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, 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.
Rape Virginia Lawyers Consensual Sufficient Testimony Rockingham County
Rape Virginia Lawyers Consensual Sufficient Testimony Rockingham County
Jeff v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court, Rockingham County (Virginia), convicting defendant of rape
Rape Virginia Lawyers Consensual Sufficient Testimony
Issue:
- Whether the testimony of the complaining witness was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that she did not consent to sexual activity with defendant?
Discussion:
A rape conviction was affirmed because the victim’s testimony was sufficient to support the conviction, although the record contained significant conflicting evidence. Defendant had sexual intercourse with an intoxicated woman in a hotel room where several people were drinking alcoholic beverages. Defendant claimed that it was consensual, and the testimony of other witnesses supported defendant’s version of events. The complaining witness testified that she had told defendant to stop and that he did not listen to her. The appellate court affirmed the rape conviction because determining the credibility of the witnesses was a matter for the jury. The testimony of the complaining witness was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that she did not consent to sexual activity with defendant, despite conflicting testimony from other witnesses. The court affirmed the rape conviction, finding the testimony of the complaining witness to be sufficient evidence to support the conviction even where other witnesses gave conflicting accounts of events.
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, 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.
Minor Solicitation Virginia Sodomy Indecent Liberties Attorneys Loudoun County
Minor Solicitation Virginia Sodomy Indecent Liberties Attorneys Loudoun County
Thomas v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Appellant sought review of the decision of the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia, which convicted him of attempting to take indecent liberties with a child under the age of 14 and solicitation to commit sodomy, in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-370(5), 18.2-29.
Minor Solicitation Virginia Sodomy Indecent Liberties Attorneys Loudoun County
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting the statements as party admissions and in finding the evidence sufficient to convict?
Discussions:
At trial, the state introduced internet communications between the 13-year-old victim and, allegedly, appellant. Appellant contended the trial court erred in admitting the statements as party admissions and in finding the evidence sufficient to convict. The appellate court found that external facts verified personal information that were revealed in the internet communications and that there was no evidence to suggest anyone else could impersonate appellant by appropriating his internet alias to communicate with victim. Because messages received over the internet are admissible against the sender if the evidence establishes the identity of the sender and because appellant was so identified, the appellate court ruled that the trial court could admit the statements as admissions by appellant. The appellate court held that appellant’s actions and statements were not just “words alone” and supported a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he solicited the crime. But for the intervention of police, appellant would have completed the crime; thus he was guilty of the attempted crime.
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, 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.
Unlawful Carnal Knowledge Virginia Violation Lawyers Tazewell County
Unlawful Carnal Knowledge Virginia Violation Lawyers Tazewell County
Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Facts:
When defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful carnal knowledge, he stipulated to the Commonwealth’s evidence. Specifically, defendant agreed that the evidence proved that both victims were between the ages of 13 and 15 at the time of the offenses. However, at the preliminary hearing, one victim testified that she was 15 at the time of the offense. Defendant appealed a judgment by the Circuit Court of Tazewell County (Virginia) that convicted him of unlawful carnal knowledge, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-63; defendant claimed that because the victim was 15 at the time of the offense, the evidence failed to prove an element of the offense for which he was convicted.
Unlawful Carnal Knowledge Virginia Violation Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in convicting defendant of two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge though the victim testified at the preliminary hearing that she was actually fifteen years of age at the time of the offense?
Discussion:
This court held that by entering a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea of guilty, defendant supplied all of the evidence necessary to support his convictions. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding him guilty of unlawful carnal knowledge, in violation of § 18.2-63. a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, accepted by the court, bars him from attacking his conviction based on any non-jurisdictional grounds. Thus this court held that the trial court did not err in finding Armstrong guilty of unlawful carnal knowledge, in violation of Code § 18.2-63.
This court hence affirmed the trial court judgment.
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, 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
Maryland Child Pornography Possession Conviction Lawyers Baltimore County
Defendant’s conviction for possession of child pornography was upheld on appeal because the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to the officer executing the search warrant since defendant was not in custody at the time.
Maryland Child Pornography Possession Conviction Lawyers
Prosecution of Child Pornography is on the rise in Maryland
Frequently, innocent possession or receipt of images are being prosecuted by federal prosecutors & state prosecutors in Virginia.
If you have been charged with Child Pornography in Maryland, contact the SRIS Law Group Maryland Child Pornography defense attorneys.
Our Maryland Child Pornography defense lawyers defend cases in both the federal courts of Maryland & the state courts of Maryland.
The MD Child Pornography defense lawyers have the experience and
knowledge necessary to defend you against these types of charges.
We have client meeting locations in Baltimore & Montgomery.
