Sodomy Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Rape Victim Prior Conduct
Sodomy Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Rape Victim Prior Conduct
Luigi v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Virginia) that convicted him of burglary in the nighttime with the intent to commit rape or sodomy, rape, and forcible sodomy. Defendant claimed that the trial court erred in denying his motion to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.7.
Sodomy Fairfax Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct?
Discussion:
Defendant sought to introduce evidence at trial of the victim’s prior sexual conduct in order to explain the origin of a hair fragment found in her cervix. The hair fragment was not positively identified as defendant’s, though it was found to be from a person of African-American descent. The victim admitted to having sexual intercourse with her boyfriend several days before the alleged crime. Both defendant and the victim’s boyfriend were African-Americans and the doctor who examined the victim was prepared to testify that the hair could have come from the boyfriend. The trial court ruled that the evidence was inadmissible under the rape shield law, § 18.2-67.7. In reversing defendant’s conviction, the court ruled that the probative value of the victim’s prior sexual conduct, especially because it tended to rebut the only significant physical evidence of defendant’s guilt, outweighed any embarrassment to the victim or prejudice it might have caused in the minds of the jury. Defendant had the constitutional rights of compulsory process, confrontation, and due process to present the evidence, the court ruled, and the trial court committed reversible error in excluding it. The court reversed and remanded a judgment that convicted defendant of burglary in the nighttime with the intent to commit rape or sodomy, rape, and forcible sodomy.
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 Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Independent Medical Examination Rape Prosecution
Sodomy Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Independent Medical Examination Rape Prosecution
Mike v. Commonwealth
Facts:
The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed defendant’s convictions for sodomy with a child under the age of 13 years and statutory rape of the same child when she was 13 years of age. Defendant appealed.
Sodomy Fairfax Virginia Lawyer I
Issue:
Whether the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion requiring an independent medical examination of the complaining witness’s sexual anatomy in his statutory rape prosecution?
Discussion:
Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion requiring an independent medical examination of the complaining witness’s sexual anatomy in his statutory rape prosecution. Specifically, defendant argued the trial court’s ruling undermined his ability to fully defend himself and asserted the due process rights of a Virginia defendant included the right to compel the physical examination of a statutory rape victim. The appellate court initially noted no statute or rule of court provided for a defense right to compel physical examinations of crime victims. The appellate court held if an accused in Virginia had no right to interview a rape case victim, and no right to discover statements made by Commonwealth’s witnesses to agents of the Commonwealth, and no right to discover certain internal commonwealth documents, the accused had no right to a physical examination of the victim in a statutory rape case. The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed.
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 Stafford Virginia Lawyer Prior Conduct Excluded
Rape Stafford Virginia Lawyer Prior Conduct Excluded
Young v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant challenged an order of the Circuit Court of Stafford County (Virginia), which convicted him for rape, asserting that it was error for the trial court to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior conduct under the rape shield provision of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.7.
Rape Stafford Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in excluding the evidence of the victim’s prior conduct?
Discussion:
At his rape trial, defendant was not allowed to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct pursuant to the rape shield provision of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.7. He was convicted of forcible rape and forcible sodomy. On appeal the court reversed and remanded. The court held that it was reversible error for the trial court to exclude the evidence of the victim’s prior conduct which was relevant to show the victim’s motive to fabricate a charge against defendant and which showed a pattern of behavior directly related to the conduct charged. The court found a sufficient nexus between the victim’s prior efforts to extort money by threats, after acts of prostitution, and defendant’s version of her conduct, to make the evidence relevant and probative of a motive to fabricate. The court reversed the rape conviction 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, 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 Virginia Sodomy Penetration Mistrial Lawyers Danville City
Rape Virginia Sodomy Penetration Mistrial Lawyers Danville City
Martin v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed a judgment of the Circuit Court for the City of Danville (Virginia), which approved four jury verdicts convicting him of two counts of rape, breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to rape, and sodomy. Defendant alleged that the trial court erred when it failed to grant defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the fact that the prosecutor told the jury to consider defendant’s record when deciding punishment.
Rape Virginia Sodomy Penetration Mistrial Lawyers Danville City
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury not to discuss the case until instructions had been given and final arguments made, and erred in failing to grant a mistrial based upon the Commonwealth’s closing argument?
Discussion:
Subsequent to defendant’s conviction, he contested the prosecutor’s comments to the jury regarding defendant’s punishment and prior convictions. The court noted that the prosecutor’s comments relative to defendant’s prior convictions was limited to defendant’s credibility and the trial court clearly instructed the jury that the prior convictions were only to be used in evaluating defendant’s credibility. Defendant made no motion for a mistrial until three months after the jury’s verdict had been announced. Finding that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial, the court held that once a jury was instructed regarding the use or limitations placed upon specific evidence, they were presumed to follow such instructions. Reversing the conviction of sodomy, the court held that the essential element of penetration was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. No evidence established that defendant’s lip or tongue made contact with the victim’s vagina and no evidence was offered to equate oral sex to the meaning of sex as the victim defined it. The court affirmed the convictions of rape and breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to rape. However, the court reversed the conviction for sodomy and dismissed that 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.
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.
Sodomy Virginia Rape Prior Criminal Threat Intimation Lawyers Frederick County
Sodomy Virginia Rape Prior Criminal Threat Intimation Lawyers Frederick County
Frederick v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant challenged a judgment from the Circuit Court of Frederick County (Virginia), which overruled defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of his unrelated, prior criminal activities, denied defendant’s motion for new trial, and convicted defendant for rape and sodomy of his stepdaughter.
Sodomy Virginia Rape Prior Criminal Threat Intimation Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial judge erred in overruling Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of his unrelated, prior criminal activities and erred in denying his motion for a new trial?
Discussion:
Prior to a bench trial on charges of acts of rape and sodomy, defense counsel filed a motion in limine to prohibit references to defendant’s past criminal history and to his involvement with organized crime, and the trial court ruled that the motion was somewhat moot. At trial, the victim testified that she had forcible sex with defendant, who threatened to kill her family, and that she had believed the threat because he was “affiliated with the mob.” The trial court allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine a detective, the victim’s mother, and defendant’s former employer on defendant’s criminal history and/or his involvement with the Mafia. Defendant was convicted for rape and sodomy. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, remanded, and held that: the victim’s knowledge of defendant’s past criminal history was relevant because it was probative of an element of the crimes of rape and sodomy, both of which required proof that the acts occurred “by force, threat or intimidation;” but the testimonies of the remaining witnesses on defendant’s past criminal activities or involvement with the Mafia were not relevant to any element or issue of the crimes charged. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, which had denied defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of his unrelated, prior criminal activities, denied his motion for new trial, and convicted him for rape and sodomy. The court remanded to the trial court 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 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 Forcible Licensed Psychiatrist Attorneys Chesterfield County
Sodomy Virginia Forcible Licensed Psychiatrist Attorneys Chesterfield County
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allan Paul
Facts:
Defendant had two convictions for forcible sodomy. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the circuit court erred in qualifying a licensed clinical psychiatrist as an expert because she was not skilled in the treatment of the mental conditions she diagnosed defendant with. The Commonwealth filed a petition requesting that defendant be civilly committed pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 37.2-900 through 920. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County (Virginia) entered final judgment holding that defendant was not a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act. The Commonwealth appealed.
Sodomy Virginia Forcible Licensed Psychiatrist Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the circuit court erred in qualifying a witness to testify as an expert under the Sexually Violent Predators Act?
Discussion:
The Supreme Court finds that Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-907(A) required the psychiatrist to demonstrate skill in both diagnosis and treatment of the stated mental conditions, and that she did not meet the skill in treatment requirement. The Commonwealth also argued that the circuit court erred in concluding that the Commonwealth failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant was a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the evidence, as a matter of law, provided clear and convincing proof that defendant was a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act. Among other things, the Commonwealth’s expert testified that defendant estimated he may have abused young boys as many as 100 times and that defendant’s personality disorder might prevent him from seeking treatment for his problems. The judgment of the circuit court was reversed. Judgment was entered for the Commonwealth that defendant was a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act and the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether defendant should be fully committed or placed on conditional release.
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.
Sodomy Virginia Rape Criminal Stepdaughter Lawyers King William County
Sodomy Virginia Rape Criminal Stepdaughter Lawyers King William County
Christopher v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant challenged a judgment from the Circuit Court of King Willam County (Virginia), which overruled defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of his unrelated, prior criminal activities, denied defendant’s motion for new trial, and convicted defendant for rape and sodomy of his stepdaughter.
Sodomy Virginia Rape Criminal Stepdaughter Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the victim’s knowledge of defendant’s past criminal history was relevant?
Discussions:
Prior to a bench trial on charges of acts of rape and sodomy, defense counsel filed a motion in limine to prohibit references to defendant’s past criminal history and to his involvement with organized crime, and the trial court ruled that the motion was somewhat moot. At trial, the victim testified that she had forcible sex with defendant, who threatened to kill her family, and that she had believed the threat because he was “affiliated with the mob.” The trial court allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine a detective, the victim’s mother, and defendant’s former employer on defendant’s criminal history and/or his involvement with the Mafia. Defendant was convicted for rape and sodomy. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, remanded, and held that: (1) the victim’s knowledge of defendant’s past criminal history was relevant because it was probative of an element of the crimes of rape and sodomy, both of which required proof that the acts occurred “by force, threat or intimidation;” but (2) the testimonies of the remaining witnesses on defendant’s past criminal activities or involvement with the Mafia were not relevant to any element or issue of the crimes charged.
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.
