Linnon v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 10 January 2014
• Docket Number: Record No. 130179.
• Citation: 287 Va. 92,752 S.E.2d 822
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Craig M. LINNON v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

287 Va. 92

752 S.E.2d 822

Craig M. LINNON

v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Record No. 130179.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Jan. 10, 2014.

Steven D. Benjamin (Betty Layne DesPortes; Benjamin & DesPortes, on briefs), Richmond, for appellant.

Kathleen B. Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

PRESENT: All the Justices.

Opinion by Justice WILLIAM C. MIMS.

In this appeal, we consider whether a teacher had a custodial or supervisory relationship with a student within the meaning of Code § 18.2–370.1(A). We also consider whether arguments relating to proposed jury instructions were properly preserved.

I. BACKGROUND AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Craig Linnon taught a building trades class at a vocational school. He also was assigned the responsibility of supervising students in the cafeteria during lunch one day each week and on the sidewalk outside his classroom before, after, and between classes each day. His wife, Angela, was the school nurse. She also occasionally monitored a cosmetology class when the teacher stepped out. A.G. was a 16–year–old female student in the cosmetology class. A.G. was not one of Craig's students but they saw each other every day when he monitored the sidewalk near the bus loading zone.

In December 2009, A.G.'s cosmetology class had a party on school grounds to celebrate the end of the semester. At the party, Angela invited A.G. and A.G.'s female friend to the Linnons' home that night. The two girls accepted the invitation and the Linnons picked them up that evening. At their home, the Linnons supplied A.G. and her friend with alcohol in exchange for marijuana. Craig told A.G. that Angela had sexual fantasies about her and that he had a video of Angela fellating one of his male students. A.G. and her friend were disturbed by the sexual content of the conversation and decided to leave. Craig drove them to the friend's home.

The following night, the Linnons again invited A.G. to their home. A.G. returned in the company of Jared Todd, her ex-boyfriend, and Tyler Scott, Todd's friend. Both Todd and Scott were 18 years old. Todd was one of Craig's students. The Linnons and the teenagers drank alcohol; the Linnons, Scott, and A.G. also smoked marijuana.

The group began playing a sex-themed version of Charades in the living room. The game devolved into a sexual orgy when Angela actually fellated Todd and Scott rather than merely miming. During the activities that followed, Craig inserted his penis into A.G.'s mouth. Craig also inserted his fingers into A.G.'s vagina and anus. He also implored her to have sex with Angela.

Sometime thereafter, Todd and Scott went to the bathroom and decided to leave the Linnons' home. When A.G. realized Todd and Scott had left the living room, she found her clothes and got dressed. When Todd and Scott returned from the bathroom, they got dressed and announced that they were leaving. The three teenagers departed as the Linnons continued having sex on the living room floor.

Craig was subsequently indicted on three counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor by a person in a custodial or supervisory relationship, in violation of Code § 18.2–370.1(A).¹ He and Angela were tried jointly but were represented by separate counsel. At trial, he moved to strike both when the Commonwealth rested its case and at the close of the evidence, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he had a custodial or supervisory relationship with A.G. The circuit court denied his motions. Angela objected to three of the Commonwealth's proposed jury instructions and Craig objected to a fourth. The court also rejected two jury instructions Craig proposed. The jury thereafter convicted Craig on all three counts and he was sentenced to a term of eleven years' active incarceration.

Craig appealed to the Court of Appeals, asserting that the circuit court erred by denying his motions to strike, by granting the Commonwealth's four proposed jury instructions over defense objections, and by rejecting his proposed jury instructions. The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not err in denying Craig's motions to strike because the evidence showed he had a custodial or supervisory relationship over A.G. It concluded that his argument about the Commonwealth's proposed jury instructions was not preserved for the purposes of Rule 5A:18 because he failed to state any ground for his objection to one and he did not join Angela's objections to the other three. Finally, it determined that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing his proposed jury instructions because it had already adequately instructed the jury on one issue and the other proposed instruction incorrectly stated the law.

We awarded Craig this appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

A. MOTIONS TO STRIKE

Craig asserts that the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the circuit court's rulings on his motions to strike because, under its interpretation, mere employment as a teacher when a minor attends school establishes the relationship necessary for conviction under Code § 18.2–370.1(A). We disagree.

A motion to strike challenges whether the evidence is sufficient to submit the case to the jury. What the elements of the offense are is a question of law that we review de novo. Whether the evidence adduced is sufficient to prove each of those elements is a factual finding, which will not be set aside on appeal unless it is plainly wrong. In reviewing that factual finding, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and give it the benefit of all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. After so viewingthe evidence, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In sum, if there is evidence to support the conviction, the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its judgment, even if its view of the evidence might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial.

Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187, 223–24, 738 S.E.2d 847, 868,cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 427, 187 L.Ed.2d 282 (2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Code § 18.2–370.1(A) provides that “[a]ny person 18 years of age or older who, except as provided in § 18.2–370, maintains a custodial or supervisory relationship over a child under the age of 18 and is not legally married to such child and such child is not emancipated who, with lascivious intent, knowingly and intentionally” engages in certain proscribed acts “shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.” The purpose of the statute “is to protect minors from adults who might exploit certain types of relationships.” Sadler v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 762, 765, 667 S.E.2d 783, 785 (2008). The key question in determining whether a given relationship falls within the statute is whether the defendant “had the responsibility for and control of the [child's] safety and well-being.” Krampen v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 163, 168, 510 S.E.2d 276, 278 (1999); see also Guda v. Commonwealth, 42 Va.App. 453, 459–60, 592 S.E.2d 748, 750–51 (2004) (rejecting the argument that the child must be specifically entrusted to the defendant's care through explicit parental delegation of responsibility).

As a general rule, primary and secondary school administrators and teachers meet this criterion. We have held that school administrators have a responsibility “to supervise and ensure that students could have an education in an atmosphere conducive to learning, free of disruption, and threat to person.” Burns v. Gagnon, 283 Va. 657, 671, 727 S.E.2d 634, 643 (2012) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). They have “a duty to supervise and care for” all students who are on school premises or engaged in school activities.²Id. This responsibility extends to those to whom administrators assign it within the scope of the assignment, even those who are not teachers and have no students.³ When an administrator assigns this responsibility to a teacher in addition to the teacher's classroom duties, it encompasses students not enrolled in the teacher's classes.

The evidence established that Craig was assigned responsibility for student safety and supervision in the cafeteria one day each week and on the sidewalk before, after, and between classes each day. This assignment was beyond the scope of his regular classroom duties and encompassed students not enrolled in his classes. He therefore had the relationship required by the statute with respect to A.G. even though she was not his student.

However, Code § 18.2–370.1(A) also requires that the acts proscribed by the statute occur while the defendant “maintains” the required relationship. The proscribed acts in this case did not occur on school premises or during any school activity. Accordingly, Craig's mere status as a teacher is insufficient to warrant conviction. Conversely, the facts that the proscribed acts occurred at his home and were unrelated to any school activity are insufficient by themselves to warrant acquittal.

In Sadler, we considered the case of a softball coach convicted of molesting a minor female on his team. Ten days after a team fundraiser and three days before a softball tournament, the defendant visited the victim at her home, where he kissed her and rubbed her buttocks. He also showed her the team's new uniforms. 276 Va. at 764, 667 S.E.2d at 784. On appeal, the defendant argued that he was not acting in his capacity as a coach during the visit and that the conduct therefore did not occur in the context of the relationship required for conviction under Code § 18.2–370.1(A). Id. at 765, 667 S.E.2d at 784. We rejected that argument, holding that a defendant may maintain the required relationship even when the proscribed acts occur outside the context giving rise to it. We concluded that “[w]hether such a relationship exists at...