Virginia Rape Fairfax Lawyers Violation Code 18.2-61 Force Threat Intimidation
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.
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.
Rape Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Sodomy Evidence Intention Force
Rape Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Sodomy Evidence Intention Force
Dennis v. Commonwealth
Facts:
A jury in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg City (Virginia) convicted defendant of sodomy and rape and sentenced him to a total of 20 years. The court of appeals reversed. The Commonwealth filed a petition for a rehearing en banc which was granted.
Rape Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of similar crimes to show defendant’s intent to rape the victim?
Discussions:
Defendant contended that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of similar crimes to show his intent to rape the victim because his intent was not an element of the crime charged. The appellate court held that the evidence of prior crimes was inadmissible because intent was not an element of the offense charged; rape required a showing that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim against her will, by force, threat, or intimidation. The Commonwealth argued that even if the trial court erred, such error was harmless. The appellate court disagreed, noting that the testimony of two women with whom defendant had acted in a similar manner was highly prejudicial and encouraged the inference that because defendant committed similar crimes in the past, he likely committed 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, 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.
Forcible Sodomy Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Violation Perpetration Consent
Forcible Sodomy Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Violation Perpetration Consent
Victor v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County (Virginia) of forcible anal sodomy, perpetrated on defendant’s own 13-year-old niece, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1. Defendant appealed his conviction.
Forcible Sodomy Loudoun Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erroneously granted the Commonwealth’s motion in limine?
Discussions:
Defendant contended that the trial court erroneously granted the Commonwealth’s motion in limine, prohibiting him from cross-examining the victim concerning her allegedly false statement to police about prior sexual acts involving consensual vaginal intercourse with two young boys. The victim made the admission to a registered nurse during a sexual assault examination. By cross-examining the victim concerning her false statement to the police and her subsequent admission to the nurse, defendant would have injected into the case evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct. Defendant argued that this evidence would have provided an alternative theory of the crime, explaining the victim’s rectal scar. Defendant asserted that the rectal scarring could have been caused by consensual anal intercourse with a third party. The suppressed cross-examination could not have done so. Consensual vaginal intercourse would not have caused the scar on the victim’s rectum. Thus, evidence of the victim’s false denial of earlier intercourse did not fall within the exception contained in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.7(A)(1), the “rape shield statute.” The denial was also inadmissible for impeachment.
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.
Attempt Rape Prince William Virginia Lawyer Specific Intent Assault
Attempt Rape Prince William Virginia Lawyer Specific Intent Assault
Commonwealth v. Millard
Facts:
Defendant challenged a judgment of the Circuit Court for the County of Prince William (Virginia), which entered a jury verdict convicting defendant of attempted rape. Defendant based his defense on a claim that his inebriated state on the night of the assault precluded him from forming the intent to engage in intercourse, and he argued that the trial court erred in charging the jury that the Commonwealth was not required to prove specific intent.
Attempt Rape Prince William Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the specific intent was required to prove for attempted rape?
Discussion:
Defendant argued that specific intent was required to prove attempted rape and that because his voluntary intoxication precluded him from forming that intent, the judgment of conviction was erroneous. On appeal, the court disagreed. The evidence established that defendant was discovered while he was about to rape the victim, a bedridden 83-year-old woman, and that upon being discovered, defendant walked or ran away. The victim’s testimony that defendant told her of his intent to rape her was uncontradicted. Thus, the court held that the jury could reasonably have concluded that defendant was not too drunk to possess an intent to commit rape. Because the trial court’s charge on specific intent was given in light of that evidence, the charge was applicable to the facts of the case and was not improper when applied thereto. Further, voluntary drunkenness was not an excuse for crimes or for attempts. Finally, while the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objection to the prosecutor’s argument that alcohol excited passions and in stating that the argument was based on common sense, the error was harmless because the trial court later instructed the jury to disregard the remark. The court affirmed the judgment of 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, 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.
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.
Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Capital Murder Double Jeopardy
Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer Capital Murder Double Jeopardy
Ching v.Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Loudoun (Virginia) finding him guilty of capital murder during the commission of or subsequent to attempted rape and sentencing him to death. The judgment was based on a second indictment against defendant filed after his first trial resulted in remand, by the supreme court, mandating a new trial on a charge of no greater than first degree murder.
Rape Loudoun Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment for capital murder as violative of defendant’s double jeopardy protection?
Discussion:
In response to numerous assignments of error, the supreme court held, inter alia, that: (1) the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment for capital murder as violative of defendant’s double jeopardy protection; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant’s motion to disqualify the Commonwealth’s attorney based on the fact that a letter defendant sent to the attorney asserted a grossly offensive personal attack on the attorney and thus, created a conflict of interest, since the attorney assured the court that it had not had an effect on his professional judgment; (3) evidence of a rape and attempted murder of a second victim was admissible where the Commonwealth alleged that said acts were interrelated parts of a common criminal plan and, thus, relevant to prove defendant’s identity, motive, and intent as the perpetrator of all the crimes committed in the course of carrying out that plan; (4) the trial court did not err in failing to suppress defendant’s statement given after he freely and knowingly waived his Fifth Amendment right to counsel; and (5) defendant’s sentence was not excessive or disproportionate. he judgment of the trial court 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.
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.
