Virginia Fairfax Rape Lawyer Grand Larceny Firearm
Virginia Fairfax Rape Lawyer Grand Larceny Firearm
Campbell v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed his convictions in the Circuit Court for Fairfax (Virginia) for rape, grand larceny, two counts of the felonious use of a firearm while committing murder, and two counts of capital. He also appealed the two death sentences imposed by the jury.
If you are facing a criminal case in Fairfax, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Virginia Fairfax Rape Lawyer Grand Larceny Firearm
Holdings:
The Virginia Court made the following holding:
- A circuit court is authorized to discharge the jury either when it appears that the jurors cannot agree on a verdict–are hung–or when there is a manifest necessity for such discharge. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-361. The power to discharge a jury is discretionary and the court must exercise that power carefully, according to the circumstances of the case. The object of the law is to obtain a fair and just verdict, and whenever it shall appear to the court that the jury impaneled cannot render such a verdict, it ought to be discharged, and another jury impaneled.
- When a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, it is within the sound discretion of the circuit court to determine at what point a mistrial should be granted because the jury is hung. The circuit court is authorized to allow deliberations to continue, in consideration of the seriousness of the matter to the community, and the length and complexity of the trial proceedings. Among the alternatives available to the circuit court is the provision of an Allen charge, reminding the jury of the need to reach a verdict if one can be reached without any individual juror giving up his or her conviction.
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.
Fairfax Court House Detail:
Fairfax Circuit Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030.
Fairfax County General District Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030.
Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030-4020.
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.
Rape Prince William Virginia Lawyer Malicious Wounding Intention Detention Arrest
Rape Prince William Virginia Lawyer Malicious Wounding Intention Detention Arrest
Yale v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed a decision of the Circuit Court of the Prince William County (Virginia) that convicted him of rape and malicious wounding and sentenced him to 40 years imprisonment.
Rape Prince William Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s initial detention and arrest were lawful?
Discussions:
The victim was using a phone booth when defendant started to harass her. She called 911, and defendant fled. As she was walking home, she turned around and saw defendant coming at her with a knife. He put his arm around her neck and held the knife to her throat. He then dragged the victim behind a building and forced her to commit oral sodomy and he raped and stabbed her. After his arrest, defendant admitted that he grabbed the victim. He claimed that the sex was consensual. Defendant was convicted. In affirming the conviction, the court found that defendant’s initial detention and arrest were lawful. The officers’ actions were not unreasonable. The trial court properly overruled defendant’s motion to suppress his statements and the victim’s identification. Defendant’s statements were freely and voluntarily given to the officers. The victim’s identification was not tainted by unduly suggestive procedures because she had ample time to observe defendant at the time of the offense, and only seven weeks separated the time of the crime for the preliminary hearing. The victim’s prior knowledge that he had confessed to the crimes did not irreparably taint her identification.
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 Forcible Sodomy Force Victim Testimony
Rape Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Forcible Sodomy Force Victim Testimony
O’Brian v. Commonwealth
Facts:
The Commonwealth of Virginia challenged a ruling from a panel of the court, which reversed defendant’s conviction for statutory burglary, rape, and two counts of forcible sodomy. The case went before the court for a rehearing en banc.
Rape Alexandria Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether intercourse was accomplished with force and against the victim’s will?
Discussions:
At trial, the victim testified that defendant entered her bedroom, assaulted her, raped her, then fell asleep on the victim’s bed. The bloodied victim ran from the house and told her story to a passing motorist, who called the police. The police found defendant asleep on the victim’s bed and arrested him. Defendant appealed, a panel reversed the conviction, and the court granted the Commonwealth a rehearing. At issue were defendant’s out-of-court question to a police officer and an overheard conversation between defendant and the victim, both of which the trial court excluded. The court upheld the trial court’s ruling on the question to the police officer but ruled error in the exclusion of the overheard conversation, which was relevant to prove the nature of the relationship between the victim and defendant. The error, however, was harmless. Because defendant conceded that he had sexual intercourse with the victim, the only issues for the jury to decide were whether the intercourse was accomplished with force and against the victim’s will. Evidence independent of the victim’s testimony proved overwhelmingly that defendant used force to accomplish non-consensual intercourse.
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.
Pornography Virginia Beach Lawyer Obscene Harassment Indecent Accuracy
Pornography Virginia Beach Lawyer Obscene Harassment Indecent Accuracy
Walter v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (Virginia) of harassment by computer, under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.7:1. A panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the conviction, and the Commonwealth’s petition for a rehearing en banc was granted.
Pornography Virginia Beach Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction?
Discussions:
Defendant’s prosecution arose from e-mails he sent the victim and others. He said the language in the e-mails did not meet the definition of “obscene.” The appellate court held sufficient evidence supported defendant’s conviction because (1) the common definition of the word “obscene” more accurately encompassed the type of communicative conduct proscribed by the statute, namely, that which was obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent, than did a definition in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-372, which was actually a definition of pornography, and (2) a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the language defendant used in his e-mails to the victim fit the common definition. Due process did not bar the application of this common definition of “obscene” to defendant’s conduct, when the word had been defined differently in a prior appellate decision, because the criminalization of the conduct resulting in defendant’s conviction predated that decision, which dealt with a different criminal statute and remained subject to the appellate court’s en banc review, as well as review by the Virginia Supreme 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.
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 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.
Rape Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Marital Sex Public Policy
Rape Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Marital Sex Public Policy
Mitthun v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed his conviction for rape of his wife in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Virginia). Defendant claimed that the conviction had to be reversed because it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61, where, at the time of the alleged offense, the parties were living separate and apart. He also argued that public policy was against a husband being charged with rape because it would have been disruptive to marriages.
Rape Fairfax Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court properly convicted the defendant for Rape charge?
Discussion:
The court found each of the assertions meritless. It said that defendant’s assertion that the common law rule still applied today was erroneous. It said that his estranged wife had a right to refuse sexual intercourse with him at the very least while they were separated. Additionally, the court said that it rejected the English common law rule regarding a husband’s marital exemption from a charge of raping his wife and the implied consent to marital intercourse as provides that a wife cannot unilaterally revoke her implied consent to marital intercourse. The court went further to say that defendant’s argument that the to revoke the marital exemption would have disrupted marriages was absurd. It said that a wife could have unilaterally revoked her implied consent to marital sex, where she made manifest her intent to terminate the marital relationship by living separate, and violations after that established a violation of Va. Code § 18.2-61. The court affirmed the conviction
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 Danville Virginia Lawyer Intimidation Psychological Pressure Force Threa
Rape Danville Virginia Lawyer Intimidation Psychological Pressure Force Threat
Gerald v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant uncle and defendant aunt appealed from the judgments of the Circuit Court of the City of Danville (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 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 Danville Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether intimidation could be caused by the imposition of psychological pressure on the victim?
Discussions:
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. 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 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 Bedford Virginia Evidence Expert Testimony Lawyer
Child Pornography Bedford Virginia Evidence Expert Testimony Lawyer
Commonwealth v. David
Facts:
Defendant sought review of a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of Bedford (Virginia), which found him guilty of producing sexually explicit material depicting a five-year-old girl in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1(B)(2). He contended that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, and that evidence of other offenses he committed was improperly admitted, as well as expert testimony.
Child Pornography Bedford Virginia Evidence Expert Testimony Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the evidence of other offenses he committed was improperly admitted?
Discussions:
Defendant was found guilty of producing sexually explicit material depicting a five-year-old girl in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1(B)(2). He maintained that he was an artist when he took a numerous photographs of the girl in sexually explicit poses and sought permission of the girl’s mother to publish the photos. The court affirmed defendant’s conviction. The court held that the statute was reasonably restricted to achieve its goal of protecting children from child pornography and that the incidental restriction on alleged U.S. Const. amend. I freedoms was not greater than was essential to the furtherance of that interest. The court found that it was constitutionally sufficient for the prosecution to show that defendant had knowledge of the contents of the materials and that he knew the character and nature of their contents. The court ruled that testimony that defendant fondled the girl and masturbated in her presence was admissible because it showed defendant’s conduct and feeling toward the girl and their prior relationship. The court permitted the prosecution to solicit an expert opinion on whether the pictures appealed to a prurient interest.
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.
