Virginia Fairfax Rape Lawyer Grand Larceny Firearm
Virginia Fairfax Rape Lawyer Grand Larceny Firearm
Campbell v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed his convictions in the Circuit Court for Fairfax (Virginia) for rape, grand larceny, two counts of the felonious use of a firearm while committing murder, and two counts of capital. He also appealed the two death sentences imposed by the jury.
If you are facing a criminal case in Fairfax, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Virginia Fairfax Rape Lawyer Grand Larceny Firearm
Holdings:
The Virginia Court made the following holding:
- A circuit court is authorized to discharge the jury either when it appears that the jurors cannot agree on a verdict–are hung–or when there is a manifest necessity for such discharge. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-361. The power to discharge a jury is discretionary and the court must exercise that power carefully, according to the circumstances of the case. The object of the law is to obtain a fair and just verdict, and whenever it shall appear to the court that the jury impaneled cannot render such a verdict, it ought to be discharged, and another jury impaneled.
- When a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, it is within the sound discretion of the circuit court to determine at what point a mistrial should be granted because the jury is hung. The circuit court is authorized to allow deliberations to continue, in consideration of the seriousness of the matter to the community, and the length and complexity of the trial proceedings. Among the alternatives available to the circuit court is the provision of an Allen charge, reminding the jury of the need to reach a verdict if one can be reached without any individual juror giving up his or her conviction.
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.
Fairfax Court House Detail:
Fairfax Circuit Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030.
Fairfax County General District Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030.
Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030-4020.
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 Richmond Lawyers Convicted Rape Malicious Wounding
Virginia Sex Crime Richmond Lawyers Convicted Rape Malicious Wounding
Jani v Commonwealth
Facts:
The defendant pled guilty to charges and was convicted of rape and malicious wounding and was sentenced to prison and was requested to register with local law enforcement officers as a sex offender. The defendant appealed. The court held that the sex offender registration requirement did not violate the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto clause, which prevented the application of laws that punished crimes committed before the enactment.
If you are facing a criminal case in Richmond, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Virginia Sex Crime Richmond Lawyers
- Virginia Sex Crime Richmond Lawyers
Holdings:
The Virginia Court made the following holding:
- The United States Constitution, art. I, § 10, and Va. Const. art. I, § 9, prohibit the commonwealth from enacting ex post facto laws. These constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws apply only to statutes that impose penalties, or where a challenged change in the law alters a definition of criminal conduct.
- A statute that imposes a disability for the purposes of punishment, that is, to reprimand the wrongdoer, to deter others, etc., is considered penal. But a statute is considered non-penal if it imposes a disability, not to punish, but to accomplish some other legitimate governmental purpose. Any statute decreeing some adversity as a consequence of certain conduct may have both a penal and a non-penal effect.
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.
Virginia Rape Richmond Lawyer Juvenile Sex Offender Charges
Virginia Rape Richmond Lawyer Juvenile Sex Offender Charges
Almond v Commonwealth
Facts:
Appellant juvenile was adjudicated delinquent on charges of breaking and entering and rape, committed to the custody of appellee Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and ordered to register as a sex offender. The juvenile was released and placed under parole supervision. The juvenile petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The Circuit Court of Richmond (Virginia) granted DJJ’s motion to dismiss the petition. The juvenile appealed.
If you are facing a criminal case in Richmond, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Virginia Rape Richmond Lawyer
Holdings:
The Virginia Court made the following holding:
- A court’s jurisdiction is determined at the time the litigation is filed and, once established, remains until the termination of the litigation. When a court acquires jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person, it retains jurisdiction until the matter before it has been fully adjudicated. While intervening events may affect the nature of the relief available, they do not end or extinguish the jurisdiction of the court.
- Collateral consequences of a conviction may be sufficient to defeat a claim of mootness when the petitioner in a habeas proceeding has been released from custody subsequent to the filing of the petition.
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 Madison Virginia Lawyer Element Of Rape Violation
Forcible Sodomy Madison Virginia Lawyer Element Of Rape Violation
Fender v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed from his conviction by the Circuit Court of Madison County (Virginia) for rape in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61, and forcible sodomy in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18. 2-67.1. The Commonwealth’s motion in limine had been granted, allowing the admission of the testimony of two women who described similar crimes allegedly committed by defendant.
Forcible Sodomy Madison Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the accused knowingly and intentionally committed the acts constituting the elements of rape?
Discussions:
Defendant argued that the similar crimes evidence was improperly admitted. The appellate court held that testimony of prior victims of similar sexual crimes was inadmissible to show defendant’s intent toward the victim. Although proof of rape required proof of intent, the required intent was established upon proof that the accused knowingly and intentionally committed the acts constituting the elements of rape, which included engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim, against her will, by force, threat, or intimidation. The lack of consent required for rape involved the victim’s mental state, not the defendant’s. The fact that one woman was raped had no tendency to prove that another woman did not consent. The error was not harmless error. One witness testified that she was a prostitute and defendant was a “regular customer” who once acted in a manner similar to that described at trial. The second witness testified that she was also an escort who was attacked by defendant in a manner similar to that alleged by the victim. The witnesses’ testimony encouraged the inference that defendant committed the charged crimes as he had committed similar crimes in the past.
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.
Minor Solicitation Stafford Virginia Lawyer Felony Violation Delinquency
Minor Solicitation Stafford Virginia Lawyer Felony Violation Delinquency
Prior v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was convicted, in the Circuit Court of Stafford County (Virginia), of solicitation to commit a felony, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-29, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-371. He appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient.
Minor Solicitation Stafford Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant?
Discussions:
Defendant, in his car, approached a 14 year-old girl who was walking along a road. He asked her to have oral sex with him. She refused. He asked her if she wanted a ride, which she also refused, then ordered her to get into his car, which she would not do. Eventually she reached her house, and when her mother appeared, defendant drove away. Solicitation could consist of a course of conduct, intended to induce another to act, that continued over an extended period. The act defendant solicited the victim to commit was a class six felony, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361(A). Defendant was doing more than merely expressing a desire for oral sex, especially when he continued to insist after her refusal and ordered her to get into his car. By soliciting a minor to commit a felony, defendant also encouraged an act which would render her a delinquent, thereby contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
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.
Minor Solicitation Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Intention Distribution Obscene Material
Minor Solicitation Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Intention Distribution Obscene Material
Arnold v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant challenged his convictions from the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Virginia) for three counts of stalking under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3, four counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-371, two counts of distributing obscene material under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374, and three counts of possessing obscene material with the intent to distribute under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.
Minor Solicitation Fairfax Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant threw encouraged a delinquent act?
Discussions:
Over the course of two days, defendant drove through a residential neighborhood throwing allegedly obscene material out his car window at five juvenile girls. The material consisted of telephone sex line advertisements containing sexually explicit photographs and writing. On one occasion, defendant threw an allegedly obscene magazine. The advertisements were introduced into evidence at trial, but the magazine had been destroyed by one girl’s mother. Defendant was convicted in a bench trial of three counts of stalking under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3, four counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-371, two counts of distributing obscene material under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374, and three counts of possessing obscene material with the intent to distribute under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374. On appeal, the court reversed one count of possession with the intent to distribute obscene items, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, finding the evidence insufficient to prove that the magazine defendant threw was obscene or that it encouraged a delinquent act. The court affirmed the remaining 10 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, 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.
Pornography Virginia Beach Lawyer Obscene Harassment Indecent Accuracy
Pornography Virginia Beach Lawyer Obscene Harassment Indecent Accuracy
Walter v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (Virginia) of harassment by computer, under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.7:1. A panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the conviction, and the Commonwealth’s petition for a rehearing en banc was granted.
Pornography Virginia Beach Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction?
Discussions:
Defendant’s prosecution arose from e-mails he sent the victim and others. He said the language in the e-mails did not meet the definition of “obscene.” The appellate court held sufficient evidence supported defendant’s conviction because (1) the common definition of the word “obscene” more accurately encompassed the type of communicative conduct proscribed by the statute, namely, that which was obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent, than did a definition in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-372, which was actually a definition of pornography, and (2) a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the language defendant used in his e-mails to the victim fit the common definition. Due process did not bar the application of this common definition of “obscene” to defendant’s conduct, when the word had been defined differently in a prior appellate decision, because the criminalization of the conduct resulting in defendant’s conviction predated that decision, which dealt with a different criminal statute and remained subject to the appellate court’s en banc review, as well as review by the Virginia Supreme 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.
