Rape Virginia Sexual Battery Sodomy Victim Testimony Lawyers Norfolk City
Rape Virginia Sexual Battery Sodomy Victim Testimony Lawyers Norfolk City
Davidson v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Appellant, following convictions for multiple sex crimes committed against his daughter, appealed from the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (Virginia). Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him and, more particularly, that the Commonwealth failed to prove penetration.
Rape Virginia Sexual Battery Sodomy Victim Testimony Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant and, more particularly, that the Commonwealth failed to prove penetration?
Discussion:
Appellant was convicted of rape, aggravated sexual battery, indecent liberties, object sexual penetration, fellatio, and anal sodomy. The jury accepted appellee Commonwealth’s evidence, and rejected appellant’s argument that the victim’s testimony was unworthy of belief. The court did not find that the victim’s testimony was inherently incredible, or so contrary to human experience as to render it unworthy of belief. The victim’s testimony was corroborated by medical and physical evidence. Based on the victim’s testimony and other evidence, the jury properly found that appellee had established the elements of penetration for rape, one count of anal sodomy, two counts of fellatio, and one count of object penetration. Appellee did not prove penetration in the cunnilingus count or in one count of object sexual penetration, and there was only one incident of anal sodomy. Judgment affirmed on the rape, aggravated sexual battery, indecent liberties, object sexual penetration (one count), fellatio, and anal sodomy (one count) convictions. Judgment reversed as to cunnilingus, one count of anal sodomy, and one count object sexual penetration 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, 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 Forcible Sodomy Attempt Lawyers Norfolk City
Rape Virginia Forcible Sodomy Attempt Lawyers Norfolk City
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Billand
Facts:
Nineteen years after defendant was convicted of rape, forcible sodomy, and attempted sodomy, the Commonwealth filed a petition seeking his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-900 et seq. Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-908, the circuit court heard evidence on possible alternatives to civil commitment and concluded that the SVPA did not prohibit defendant’s transfer under the Interstate Compact. Defendant appealed a judgment by the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (Virginia) that adjudged him to be a sexually violent predator; defendant claimed that transfer of his supervision outside the Commonwealth was appropriate because he was subject to probation supervision for another crime and therefore qualified for transfer under the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Adult Offenders, Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-176.1, et seq.
Rape Virginia Forcible Sodomy Attempt Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether a person a sexually violent predator can be eligible for transfer under the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Adult Offenders?
Discussion:
The state supreme court found, inter alia, that based on its decision in Commonwealth v. Amerson, 281 Va. 414, 706 S.E.2d 879, 884 (2011), the SVPA did not authorize the conditional release of a sexually violent predator outside the Commonwealth. Accordingly, as defendant would not qualify for transfer under the Interstate Compact based on his adjudication as a sexually violent predator, the circuit court’s judgment was erroneous. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
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
Statutory Rape Virginia Pornography Possession Distribute Lawyers Norfolk City
Statutory Rape Virginia Pornography Possession Distribute Lawyers Norfolk City
AVENTA MARK v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
The Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and convicted him of carnal knowledge of a minor, statutory rape, two counts of sodomy, participating in child pornography, possession of child pornography, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed.
Statutory Rape Virginia Pornography Possession Distribute Lawyers
Issues:
- Whether the search warrant and affidavit are compliant with statutory requirements in terms of probable cause requirement and specificity requirement?
Discussion:
A presumption of validity attaches when a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate or judicial officer. Therefore, where the police conduct a search pursuant to a judicially sanctioned warrant, the defendant must rebut the presumption of validity by proving that the warrant is illegal or invalid. Code § 19.2-54 expressly prohibits issuance of a “general warrant for the search of a house, place, compartment, vehicle or baggage.” So long as the search warrant describes the objects of the search with reasonable specificity, it complies with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment. The determination whether the warrant possesses the requisite degree of specificity requires a fact-specific, case-specific analysis. In the present case, warrant was issued in relation to the “Production, Sale, Possession, Etc. Of Obscene Items,” supported by an affidavit that specifically enumerated the things or persons to be searched for, all items reasonably related to the particular offenses. Thus, the pertinent instruments sufficiently detailed the objects that were the subject of the search, together with a compelling nexus to the offenses under investigation, thereby satisfying both constitutional and statutory safeguards. Defendant asserts that the probable cause requirement was not fulfilled by evidence of the Commonwealth. When considered in totality, the circumstances clearly gave rise to a “fair probability” that like contraband or evidence of a crime would be found within defendant’s residence and justified issuance of the disputed warrant. The description of the items to be seized was included in the affidavit and was a part of the warrant. Where the actual photographs and attendant circumstances, including an explanation of the images, were before the judicial officer issuing the warrant, providing facts that substantially enhanced the measure of probable cause in support of the warrant, there was no constitutional or statutory taint to the affidavit, search warrant, or related search.
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.
