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.