Hudson v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 19 March 1925 |
| Citation | 141 Va. 525 |
| Parties | JOHN P. HUDSON v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
1. SODOMY — Evidence Held not to Support Conviction. — In the instant case, a prosecution for sodomy, there was no direct evidence that the specific crime charged, copulation per os, was committed. The circumstantial evidence created a strong suspicion that accused was guilty, but there was nothing else to discredit the denial of the accused, supported as it was by proof of his good reputation. Evidence of penetration is necessary to establish this revolting crime, and, while this may be and generally can only be shown by circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be convincing to a moral certainty and sufficient to exclude every reasonable doubt.
Held: That the evidence would not support a conviction.
2. SODOMY — Instructions. — In a prosecution for sodomy, there was no direct evidence that the specific crime charged, copulation per os, was committed. The circumstantial evidence created a strong suspicion that accused was guilty, but there was nothing else to discredit the denial of the accused, supported as it was by proof of his good reputation. The court instructed the jury as follows:
Held: That the court erred in giving this instruction.
Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Norfolk.
The opinion states the case.
Branch Johnson, for the plaintiff in error.
John R. Saunders, Attorney-General, Leon M. Bazile, Assistant Attorney-General, and Lewis H. Machen, Assistant Attorney-General, for the Commonwealth.
PRENTIS, P., delivered the opinion of the court.
1, 2 The accused has been convicted, under Code section 4551, of a felony, and sentenced to two years imprisonment under an indictment charging him with having carnal copulation with a man. The case was twice tried,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chrisman v. Com., 0397-85
...tongue did not penetrate her vagina. To sustain a sodomy conviction, evidence of penetration is required. Hudson v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 525, 527, 127 S.E. 89, 89 (1925); see also Wise v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 757, 115 S.E. 508 (1923). The evidence of penetration, however, may be circumsta......
-
Lawson v. Com.
...a conviction for sodomy, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that penetration occurred. Hudson v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 525, 527, 127 S.E. 89, 89 (1925); Chrisman v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 371, 377, 349 S.E.2d 899, 903 (1986). However, penetration may be proved by circums......
-
Ashby v. Com.
...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 th......