Virginia Sex Crime Richmond Lawyers Rape Code 18.2-67.1 Sodomy Charge

Virginia Sex Crime Richmond Lawyers Rape Code 18.2-67.1 Sodomy Charge

Colleen v Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant was convicted of rape and forcible sodomy, in violation of former Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61(A) and Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1(A), respectively. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him on the sodomy charge and a jury instruction on the sex crime charge. The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant sought further review.

 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 Rape Code 18.2-67.1 Sodomy Charge

Virginia Sex Crime Richmond Lawyers

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • An appellate court’s sole responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.
  • “Mental incapacity,” a statutory term that applies to rape and other sex crimes, in Va. Code Ann. tit. 18.2, ch. 4, art. 7, is defined as that condition of the complaining witness existing at the time of an offense which prevents the complaining witness from understanding the nature or consequences of the sexual act involved in such offense and about which the accused knew or should have known. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.10(3).

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.

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.