Summary
The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the defendant's conviction for object sexual penetration, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish the required penetration even though the victim was clothed. The court concluded that the statute requires only slight penetration and does not require skin-to-skin contact, and that the victim's testimony was sufficient and not rendered equivocal by her clothing or later testimony.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the penetration element of object sexual penetration under Code § 18.2-67.2(A) when the victim was wearing trousers and undergarments.
- Whether the victim's testimony that the defendant's finger went inside the front area of the lips of her vagina was sufficiently explicit and consistent to prove penetration.
Holdings
- Penetration under Code § 18.2-67.2(A) need not involve skin-to-skin contact; penetration may occur through clothing, and the presence of clothing is a factual consideration rather than a categorical defense.
- Officer Caleo's testimony that Davis put his finger inside the front area of the lips of her vagina, together with her later testimony that the finger hit the front area and caused pain, sufficiently established penetration.
Key quotations
“Nothing in that section specifies that such penetration be accomplished by skin-to-skin contact.” (at 4)
“And the fact that the victim is clothed does not change the outcome when, as here, the victim testifies explicitly that penetration has occurred despite the existence of clothing and the testimony is uncontradicted.” (at 4)
Factual background
During a struggle as officers attempted to place Davis in a single cell, Officer Christine Caleo testified that Davis reached between her legs, grabbed her vaginal area, and put his finger inside the front area of the lips of her vagina. Caleo was wearing trousers and undergarments. Davis testified that he was intoxicated and did not know whether he had done what Caleo described.
Procedural history
Davis was convicted in a bench trial of object sexual penetration and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary, with two years suspended. The Court of Appeals of Virginia denied his petition for appeal. The Supreme Court of Virginia awarded an appeal limited to Davis's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove penetration.