Minor Solicitation Virginia Sexual Offense Lawyers Richmond City
Minor Solicitation Virginia Sexual Offense Lawyers Richmond City
Simpson v. Commonwealth
Facts:
The City of Richmond Circuit Court (Virginia) entered a final judgment of conviction after defendant was found guilty of using a communications system to solicit a person he knew, or had reason to believe, was a minor, for certain sexual offenses, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(B). Defendant appealed.
Minor Solicitation Virginia Sexual Offense Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the statute was facially overbroad based on his contention that the statute prohibited free speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Discussion:
Defendant allegedly communicated with two girls, who were 16-years-old or less, through use of a simultaneous text message program via computer. One of the girls contacted police, who had a detective pretend to be the second girl when communicating by computer with the defendant. After several suggestions by way of computer, defendant used the computer to arrange a meeting between him and the two girls at a hotel. Police met defendant at the hotel at the time the meeting was supposed to occur. Defendant was charged with using a communications system to solicit a person he knew, or had reason to believe, was a minor, for certain sexual offenses in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(B). After he was convicted of that charge, he questioned whether that statute was facially overbroad based on his contention that the statute prohibited free speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The appellate court found that Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(B) did not prohibit speech protected by the First Amendment. It so concluded because it found the Commonwealth was permitted to prohibit the solicitation of a crime without violating the First Amendment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s 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.
Sodomy Virginia Inadmissible Statements Lawyers
Sodomy Virginia Inadmissible Statements Lawyers Richmond City
KING V. COMMONWEALTH
Facts:
The defendant had committed sodomy a week or 10 days previously disclosed by victim to his mother. Defendant gave a confession to the police. Defendant contended that the testimony of the mother relating to the statements that the victim made to her were inadmissible and should have been rejected by the trial court.
Sodomy Virginia Inadmissible Statements Lawyers
He asserted that the only competent evidence against him was his uncorroborated admissions and confessions and that they standing alone were not sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the crime charged. Defendant sought review of his conviction from the Circuit Court of Richmond City (Virginia) of sodomy per os on the person of a three-year-old boy.
Issue:
- Whether the testimony of the mother relating to the statements that the victim made to her was inadmissible?
Discussion:
This court finds that the evidence that was sought to be admitted was a statement made a week or ten days after the alleged attack. This narrative statement could not be received as a recent complaint. To do so would be to permit the mother to testify to utterances of her three-year-old child without the safeguards established by law to give sanctity to this exception to the hearsay rule. Eliminating the statement of the three-year-old child to his mother, the case of the Commonwealth rested solely on the extrajudicial confessions, was without corroboration by any other evidence, and the entire case of the Commonwealth crumbled. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court that convicted defendant and remanded for a new trial.
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.
Sodomy Virginia Rape Sexual Violent Predator Lawyers Richmond City
Sodomy Virginia Rape Sexual Violent Predator Lawyers Richmond City
Leo v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Facts:
Defendant was convicted of, among other things, rape and sodomy and sentenced to a total of 45 years imprisonment, with five years suspended. Prior to his scheduled release from incarceration, the Commonwealth filed a petition pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 37.2-900 et seq., requesting defendant’s civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in allowing certain evidence to be presented to the jury. Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Circuit Court of Richmond City (Virginia), which found him to be a sexually violent predator and committed him to the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services for involuntary secure inpatient treatment.
Sodomy Virginia Rape Sexual Violent Predator Lawyers
Issues:
- Whether the circuit court erred in admitting expert testimony unadjudicated allegations of sexual misconduct?
- Whether expert opinion testimony dependent, unadjudicated allegations are admissible into evidence?
Discussion:
The court held that the trial court erred in allowing an expert, a licensed clinical psychologist, to testify on direct examination about details of unadjudicated allegations of sexual misconduct she learned about from reading police reports. The evidence indicated that the expert, in forming her opinions, considered as true the unsubstantiated allegations contained in the police reports. Furthermore, the error regarding the admission into evidence such hearsay evidence concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by defendant was not harmless because it could not be found with assurance that such evidence did not influence the jury or that it had only a slight effect. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and 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.
Minor Solicitation Virginia Conditional Sodomy Lawyers Richmond City
Minor Solicitation Virginia Conditional Sodomy Lawyers Richmond City
Jeffrey v. Commonwealth
Facts:
The City of Richmond 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.
Minor Solicitation Virginia Conditional Sodomy 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.
Sexual Battery Virginia Rape Forcible Sodomy Lawyers Richmond City
Sexual Battery Virginia Rape Forcible Sodomy Lawyers Richmond City
BENNETT V. COMMONWEALTH
Facts:
Bennett was indicted by a grand jury on charges including abduction with intent to defile, carjacking in violation of Code § 18.2-58.1, forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, two counts of rape, and attempted robbery. He was tried by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, and was found guilty of these offenses. The jury fixed his punishment at separate terms of life imprisonment on each of the rape, abduction with the intent to defile, forcible sodomy, and carjacking offenses. The jury also set his punishment at 20 years’ imprisonment for sexual battery and ten years’ imprisonment for attempted robbery. The trial court sentenced Bennett in accordance with the jury verdicts.
Sexual Battery Virginia Rape Forcible Sodomy Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the evidence of other crimes is admissible?
Discussions:
The standard governing the admission of evidence of other crimes in the guilt phase of a criminal trial is well established. Evidence that shows or tends to show that a defendant has committed a prior crime is generally inadmissible to prove the crime charged. There are several exceptions to this general rule. One exception is that evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove a perpetrator’s identity when certain requirements are met.
One of the issues upon which “other crimes” evidence may be admitted is that of the perpetrator’s identity, or criminal agency, where that has been disputed. Proof of modus operandi is competent evidence where there is a disputed issue of identity. Evidence of other crimes, to qualify for admission as proof of modus operandi, need not bear such an exact resemblance to the crime on trial as to constitute a “signature.” Rather, it is sufficient if the other crimes bear a singular strong resemblance to the pattern of the offense charged. That test is met where the other incidents are sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit an inference of pattern for purposes of proof, thus tending to establish the probability of a common perpetrator.
If the evidence of other crimes bears sufficient marks of similarity to the crime charged to establish that the defendant is probably the common perpetrator, that evidence is relevant and admissible if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. The trial court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, must decide which of these competing considerations outweighs the other. Unless that discretion has been clearly abused, the appellate court will affirm the trial court’s decision on this issue. In determining whether a prior crime is too remote in time to be considered by the fact finder, the trial court may consider the length of time that a defendant has been incarcerated between the date of the prior crime and the date of the offense charged. The judgment was affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting testimony of the prior victims, as well as evidence that defendant was convicted of the prior crimes. The crimes all reflected a pattern, probative value of evidence outweighed any prejudicial effects.
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 Sodomy Virginia Confession Warrant Attorneys Richmond City
Rape Sodomy Virginia Confession Warrant Attorneys Richmond City
MARK TAYLOR V. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of sodomy. A detective executed the rape warrant and, accompanied by a Richmond police officer and another Salem officer, arrested defendant at his home in Richmond. On the day of trial, defendant made a motion to dismiss his arrest warrant as being improperly executed and to exclude the confession as a fruit of the unlawful arrest. The trial court denied the motion as untimely under Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:12(c)(1), and defendant was convicted.
Rape Sodomy Virginia Confession Warrant Attorneys
Issue:
Whether the officer violated the following provisions of Code § 19.2-76 in effect at the time of the arrest?
Discussion:
The court held that the officer’s failure to take defendant before a Richmond magistrate as required by Code § 19.2-76 was a mere procedural violation of that statute which did not prejudice defendant, and which did not involve an error of constitutional dimension giving rise to an application of the exclusionary rule. Here, contrary to the situations in the cases relied on by defendant, there was no lack of probable cause to arrest; there was no coercion, the confession being freely given during the brief trip from Richmond to Salem; there was no suggestion of bad faith by the police; and there was no inordinate delay in bringing defendant before a proper judicial officer having authority to grant bail. The police conduct was not tantamount to a Fourth Amendment violation and it would therefore be inappropriate to invoke the exclusionary rule.
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.
Virginia Sex Crime Prostitution Sexual Intercourse Violation Attorneys Richmond City
Virginia Sex Crime Prostitution Sexual Intercourse Violation Attorneys Richmond City
MARK TAILOR v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
On June 4, 1998, at about 1:15 a.m., appellant, driving a Dodge conversion van, stopped in a travel lane near the corner where Jakarti (Detective worked as a decoy for the investigation of prostitution) stood. Appellant lowered the passenger side window. Appellant asked Jakarti for “A blow job.” Jakarti asked $20 for that, Jakarti then told appellant to meet her in a nearby alley. Appellant did not ask Jakarti to enter the van, and appellant did not drive into the alley. Instead, appellant drove out of the area. The police stopped and arrested him a short distance away.
The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Virginia), convicting him of using a vehicle to promote prostitution or unlawful sexual intercourse in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-349. Appellant, appeals his conviction.
Virginia Sex Crime Prostitution Sexual Intercourse Violation Attorneys
Issues:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction?
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the charge on the ground of collateral estoppel?
The Court finds that the appellant did not meet Jakarti in the alley as she requested. After conversing with Jakarti, appellant drove away. Appellant did not ask Jakarti to enter the van, and he did not show or give her any money. Although appellant engaged in conversation concerning the exchange of money for a sexual act, there is no evidence of “any substantial act in furtherance thereof.” No act of adultery, fornication or any act in violation of Code § 18.2-361 occurred. The evidence shows at most “the required offer. Proof of the equally essential substantial act is completely lacking.” Moreover, the evidence failed to prove that the van was used to “aid or promote” prostitution.
The Court held that “No “substantial act in furtherance” of prostitution occurred after appellant and Jakarti conversed. Therefore, appellant did not use the vehicle to transport himself to a place “to be used for the purpose of prostitution. Moreover, Appellant did not obtain or bring about for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or any act violative of Code § 18.2-361, or give “any information or direction to any person with intent to enable such person to commit an act of prostitution.” No evidence in appellant’s case supports a finding that appellant aided or promoted prostitution. He merely conversed with the detective while he sat in the van, then drove away from the area. He did not ask her to enter the van, and he did not drive into the alley as directed by the detective. Appellant and Jakarti performed no sexual act in the van, and no money exchanged hands in the van. Appellant committed none of the acts described in Edwards where the Court found the defendant aided or promoted prostitution. Therefore, appellant’s actions did not fall within the proscription of Code § 18.2-349.
Conclusion:
This Court finds the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant violated Code § 18.2-349, this court do not address the collateral estoppel issue. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and dismiss the charge.
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
Virginia Rape Forcible Sodomy Convicted Lawyers Richmond City
Defendant was properly convicted of attempted rape and forcible sodomy because sexual battery was not a lesser-included offense of both crimes and defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on sexual battery as a lesser-included offense.
Virginia Rape Forcible Sodomy Convicted Lawyers
Prosecution of Child Pornography is on the rise in Virginia
Frequently, innocent possession or receipts of images are being prosecuted by federal prosecutors & state prosecutors in Virginia.
If you have been charged with Child Pornography in Virginia, contact the SRIS Law Group Virginia Child Pornography defense attorneys.
Our Virginia Child Pornography defense lawyers defend cases in both the federal courts of Virginia & the state courts of Virginia.
The VA Child Pornography defense lawyers have the experience and knowledge necessary to defend you against these types of charges.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax, Richmond, Lynchburg, Fredericksburg, Virginia Beach & Manassas.
