Ashby v. Com.
| Decision Date | 15 January 1968 |
| Citation | 158 S.E.2d 657,208 Va. 443 |
| Parties | George Stanley ASHBY v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Melvin J. Radin, Norfolk, for plaintiff in error.
Charles Shepherd Cox, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., A. R. Woodroof, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, and HARRISON, JJ.
The indictment in this case charged George Stanley Ashby with a crime against nature (sodomy) in violation of Code § 18.1--212, in that Ashby submitted to one William's having carnal knowledge of him by William's mouth. 1
At Ashby's trial William testified that he and his friend James, each nine years old, were in Ashby's house at the time of the alleged offense. William testified: 'he (Ashby) pulled down his pants, and told me to 'put my mouth on his privates', and so we (William and James) did it--and then, I heard my father on the front porch and I ran out.' On cross-examination William was asked: 'Now, did you mean that you put your month on his 'penis' or 'privates'?' He answered: 'Penis.' James gave substantially the same testimony about the incident.
The jury found Ashby guilty of the offense charged in the indictment, and the trial court sentenced him to one year in the penitentiary in accordance with the jury verdict. Ashby appeals from the conviction order.
Counsel argues that Ashby's conviction of sodomy should be reversed because there was no evidence that Ashby's penis penetrated William's mouth. We have held that penetration is an essential element of the crime of sodomy (Hudson v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 525, 127 S.E. 89 (1925)) and, in fact, the trial court so instructed the jury in this case. As shown by the evidence, which we have set forth in the second preceding paragraph, the Commonwealth failed to prove penetration. For that reason Ashby's conviction must be reversed.
Counsel argues also that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction that would have permitted the jury to find Ashby guilty of a misdemeanor, indecent exposure to William in violation of Code § 18.1--236. 2 An accused can be acquitted of the greater offense charged in the indictment and at the same trial convicted of lesser offenses if the lesser offenses 'be substantially charged in the indictment'. Va.Code Ann. § 19.1--249 (Repl. vol. 1960). But an indictment charging a greater offense can be considered as also charging only those lesser offenses the elements of which are elements of the greater offense, and the accused can be convicted under the indictment only of the greater offense or of such lesser offenses. Stapleton v. Commonwealth, 140 Va. 475, 486, 124 S.E. 237, 241 (1924).
Indecent exposure, though it may occur in almost all cases of sodomy where two persons are involved, is not a fact that must be charged or proved to sustain a conviction of sodomy in any case. See n. 1. Therefore, indecent exposure is not a lesser offense included in the offense of sodomy, and the trial court properly refused to give an instruction relating to indecent exposure. 3
Ashby's counsel says, and the Attorney General tacitly admits, that Ashby was convicted before the trial of this case of indecently exposing himself to William with lascivious intent in violation of Code § 18.1--214, 4 based upon the same evidence produced in this case (outlined in the second paragraph of this opinion). Counsel argues that this prosecution for sodomy was therefore barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 8 of the Constitution of Virginia and by Code § 19.1--259 (Va.Code Ann. § 19.1--259 (Repl. vol. 1960)), which forbids a second conviction where the same act violates two or more statutes.
The double jeopardy clauses would have barred the Commonwealth from prosecuting Ashby for sodomy after his conviction of indecent exposure with lascivious intent only if the offenses are identical or if one offense is necessarily included in the other offense.
The two offenses are not identical unless the facts necessary to sustain a conviction of one offense would necessarily have sustained a conviction of the other offense. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 (1932); Miles v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 462, 467, 138 S.E.2d 22, 26 (1964). To sustain a conviction of indecent exposure with lascivious intent, the Commonwealth must prove that the accused knowingly and intentionally exposed sexual or genital parts, with lascivious intent, to a child under fourteen to whom the accused was not married. See n. 4. To sustain a conviction of sodomy, the Commonwealth must prove that the accused had carnal knowledge or submitted to carnal knowledge in the manner set forth in the statute. See n. 1. So the facts necessary to sustain convictions of indecent exposure with lascivious intent and of sodomy are different.
Furthermore, neither offense is necessarily included within the other offense. As we have pointed out, the misdemeanor of indecent exposure is not included within the offense of sodomy because the elements of indecent exposure are not included within the elements of sodomy. Similarly, the elements of indecent exposure with lascivious intent are not included...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santillo v. Com.
...439, 441 n. 2, 247 S.E.2d 698, 700 n. 2 (1978), and carnal knowledge "by the mouth" indicates fellatio. See Ashby v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 443, 444, 158 S.E.2d 657, 658 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1111, 89 S.Ct. 884, 21 L.Ed.2d 808 (1969); see also Lankford v. Foster, 546 F.Supp. 241, 24......
-
Alvarez Saucedo v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1440-18-3
...441 S.E.2d 709 (1994).Although appellant relies on Moore v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 184, 491 S.E.2d 739 (1997), and Ashby v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 443, 158 S.E.2d 657 (1968), neither case involves forcible sodomy by cunnilingus. In Moore, the defendant was charged with rape, in violation of C......
-
De'Armond v. Com., Record No. 1987-06-3.
...(1992) (en banc). Code § 19.2-294 does not apply, moreover, when the abuser has committed multiple acts. See Ashby v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 443, 446, 158 S.E.2d 657, 659-60 (1968) (second conviction not barred by predecessor to Code § 19.2-294 because the abuser "committed two 2. See also U......
-
Simon v. Commonwealth of Va..
...felony exposure to certain infants with lascivious intent.” The Commonwealth responded that although a footnote in Ashby v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 443, 158 S.E.2d 657 (1968), implies indecent exposure is a lesser-included offense, the intent required to establish each offense is different. T......