DeAmicis v. Commonwealth

524 S.E.2d 151, 31 Va. App. 437, 2000 Va. App. LEXIS 48
CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedFebruary 1, 2000
Docket1240981
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 524 S.E.2d 151 (DeAmicis v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DeAmicis v. Commonwealth, 524 S.E.2d 151, 31 Va. App. 437, 2000 Va. App. LEXIS 48 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinions

BENTON, Judge,

concurring, in part and dissenting, in part.

I concur in Part I of the majority opinion and would affirm the conviction for violating Code § 18.2-370.1. I do not join in [446]*446Part II and, for the reasons that follow, I would reverse the conviction for violating Code § 18.2-371.

The indictment charged that “Michael Joseph DeAmicis, an adult, did unlawfully contribute to, encourage, or cause an act, omission, or condition which rendered a minor female child in need of services, abused, or neglected [in violation of] ... Code § 18.2-371.” At trial, the prosecutor argued that the evidence proved that the teenage child was rendered in need of services by DeAmicis’ conduct.

For the reasons more fully stated in the panel’s opinion, see DeAmicis v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 751, 757-58, 514 S.E.2d 788, 791-92 (1999), I would hold that the evidence failed to prove the teenage child was rendered in need of services. Furthermore, no evidence established that she suffered from a mental injury or any other injury from DeAmicis’ conduct. As the majority notes, before the teenage child met DeAmicis, she.“‘was having problems’ with ‘anxiety attacks,’ school attendance, drugs, ‘sexual promiscuity,’ and had attempted suicide.” She had also unsuccessfully participated in other counseling sessions. Although DeAmicis violated Code § 18.2-370.1 while photographing the teenage child, no evidence proved the child was rendered in need of services or suffered injuries by his conduct. Rather, the evidence proved that after her “counseling” with DeAmicis she “returned to public school and soon evidenced much improved academic performance, motivation, ambition, and otherwise constructive behavior.” On this record, the evidence failed to prove the violation of Code § 18.2-371 alleged by the Commonwealth.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kerry Ann Spell v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2020
Danielle Marie Embrey v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2017
James Seth Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2015
Tiffany Stevens Miller v. Commonwealth of Virginia
769 S.E.2d 706 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2015)
William Scott MacDonald v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2007
Gilbert v. Commonwealth
623 S.E.2d 428 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2005)
Guda v. Commonwealth
592 S.E.2d 748 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2004)
John Joseph Warmouth v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2001
Lawson v. Commonwealth
547 S.E.2d 513 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2001)
Patrick Timothy Jeffers v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2001
Hills v. Commonwealth
534 S.E.2d 337 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2000)
DeAmicis v. Commonwealth
524 S.E.2d 151 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
524 S.E.2d 151, 31 Va. App. 437, 2000 Va. App. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deamicis-v-commonwealth-vactapp-2000.