Elam v. Com.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 840465,840465 |
| Citation | 229 Va. 113,326 S.E.2d 685 |
| Parties | Frank Linwood ELAM v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
James E. Ghee, Farmville, for appellant.
Marla Lynn Graff, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Gerald L. Baliles, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Present: All the Justices.
A jury convicted Frank Linwood Elam under separate indictments, tried jointly, charging rape and breaking and entering with intent to commit rape. Confirming the verdict, the trial court imposed penitentiary sentences of life and 20 years.
In his appeal of the rape conviction, Elam contends that "the prosecution failed to show penetration". Otherwise, he does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to either conviction. Elam broke and entered the prosecutrix's mobile home, wakened her in her bed, "jerked the cover off", told her that "he was mean as the devil and he'd do something to hurt [her]", and "jerked off some of [her] clothes." The prosecutrix, 87 years of age and crippled, "commenced yelling" and tried to resist the assault, but her efforts "didn't do no good."
As proof that penetration never occurred, the defendant relies upon the following excerpt from the transcript of the victim's testimony:
Q. All right, after he jerked off your clothes, what did he do?
A. Well, he didn't rape me; I don't think he raped me; but it seemed like they thought he did.
Q. Did he try to put his penis into your sexual organ?
A. Yes.
Q. But you don't know whether he got it in or not?
A. No, I don't, but it liked to scared me to death.
We agree with the defendant that this testimony, while sufficient to prove attempted rape, is insufficient, standing alone, to prove rape. But it does not stand alone, and we do not agree that it forecloses proof of penetration.
To the lay person, rape is generally construed to mean total consummation of an act of sexual intercourse, committed forcibly and with complete penetration. But the law does not define the crime in the vernacular. We have recently summarized and reaffirmed the legal principles. Penetration by a penis of a vagina is an essential element of the crime of rape; proof of penetration, however slight the entry may be, is sufficient; evidence of ejaculation is not required; and no hypothesis that penetration was accomplished by some object other than a penis is sufficient to reverse a conviction unless it reasonably flows from the evidence itself rather than the imagination of counsel. Tuggle v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 493, 323 S.E.2d 539 (1984). Given the circumstantial evidence of penetration adduced by the Commonwealth in this case, the jury could rationally discount the uncertainty reflected in the prosecutrix's testimony as the product of lay ignorance of these legal principles.
The medical and forensic evidence was compelling. The examining physician testified that he found a vaginal laceration "about the length of my little finger in the vertical position, and about twice that in the horizontal position." He said that "half of the vertical tear, was outside of the entrance, and the other half was inside." The "dome of the vagina ... [was] reddened as if it had been struck by something." Type A blood, consistent with that of the prosecutrix and inconsistent with that of the defendant, was found on the bed, on the defendant's clothes,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Commonwealth
...the entry may be, is sufficient." Moore v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 184, 186, 491 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1997)(quoting Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686 (1985)). Hamilton testified that the DNA from the sperm taken from Hall's vagina matched Johnson's DNA sample. The presen......
-
Thomas v. Com.
...307 S.E.2d 896 (1983), we said former clients of the prosecutor were not disqualified from jury service, that in Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 326 S.E.2d 685 (1985), we held a sister of a former prosecutor and four former clients of the then present prosecutor not disqualified, and tha......
-
Fitzgerald v. Bass
...with a degree of certainty the act of penetration which was necessary to prove the offense of rape. See Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686 (1985). Proof of this essential fact was dependent upon Caviness' credibility as a witness. Thus, the failure of the Commonweal......
-
Fitzgerald v. Bass
...with a degree of certainty the act of penetration which was necessary to prove the offense of rape. See Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686 (1985). Proof of this essential fact was dependent upon Caviness' credibility as a witness. Thus, the failure of the Commonweal......