Marvin D. Dade v. Commonwealth

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedJune 24, 2003
Docket2042021
StatusUnpublished

This text of Marvin D. Dade v. Commonwealth (Marvin D. Dade 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
Marvin D. Dade v. Commonwealth, (Va. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia

MARVIN D. DADE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2042-02-1 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK JUNE 24, 2003 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH Von L. Piersall, Jr., Judge

Felipita Athanas (Public Defender Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

Paul C. Galanides, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Marvin D. Dade (appellant) was convicted in a jury trial of

abduction with the intent to defile, in violation of Code

§ 18.2-48; animate object sexual penetration, in violation of Code

§ 18.2-67.2; and taking indecent liberties with a minor, in

violation of Code § 18.2-370. On appeal, he challenges only the

abduction conviction, contending the abduction was incidental to

the animate object sexual penetration offense and not a separate

offense. For the reasons stated, we affirm the conviction.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. BACKGROUND

KM, age 12, testified that on May 22, 2001 she was living in

Portsmouth with her mother, two sisters, and appellant, who was

her mother's boyfriend. On that evening, her mother left home for

work. KM stayed at home with her sisters and appellant. Around

1:00 or 2:00 a.m., KM was in the bathroom and heard appellant

calling to her to bring him water.

She went into her mother's bedroom, turned on the light, and

saw appellant sitting on the bed. KM noticed a glass of water

already sitting on the table. She mentioned the water to

appellant and said, "I'm going back to bed."

At that point, appellant grabbed her by her left arm, and she

fell on the bed. When asked why she did not run away when

appellant grabbed her, KM responded, "He was too strong." After

turning off the lights, he lay down on top of her and started

pulling down her shorts and her panties. He then pulled his own

pants down. She heard a zipper and "automatically knew he was

taking off his pants." She then felt his hand in her "private

parts." She testified it felt like a sharp fingernail. He took

his finger out of her vagina and began touching his penis.

On cross-examination, KM testified she told the police that

she woke up in her own bedroom and appellant was standing over

her. She also told the police that appellant ejaculated on her,

not the bedspread.

- 2 - After the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief,

appellant moved to strike the evidence, arguing KM's testimony was

inconsistent and not credible. After appellant presented his

case, he failed to renew his motion to strike.

ANALYSIS

Appellant concedes he did not raise the issue of "incidental

abduction" at trial. Therefore, we must determine whether the

"ends of justice exception" to Rule 5A:18 applies.

"The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court." Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998) (citing Jacques v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991)); see also Rule 5A:18.

However, Rule 5A:18 provides for consideration of a ruling by the trial court that was not objected to at trial "to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice." Rule 5A:18. "'The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly'" when an error at trial is "'clear, substantial and material.'" Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 132, 380 S.E.2d 8, 10-11 (1989)). "In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred." Id. at 221, 487 S.E.2d at 272 (citing Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987)).

In order to show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, an appellant must demonstrate more than that the Commonwealth failed to prove an element of the offense . . . . The appellant must demonstrate that

- 3 - he or she was convicted for conduct that was not a criminal offense or the record must affirmatively prove that an element of the offense did not occur.

Id. at 221-22, 487 S.E.2d at 272-73 (emphasis in original).

Michaels v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 601, 607-08, 529 S.E.2d

822, 825-26 (2000).

Appellant contends he did not abduct KM, since the

detention was not separate and apart from, but was merely

incidental to, the restraint employed in the indecent liberties

and object sexual penetration offenses. Thus, he concludes, the

ends of justice exception in Rule 5A:18 applies, and we should

consider his sufficiency argument. We disagree.

Appellant is correct in his general statement of the law.

A defendant may be convicted of abduction in addition to "another crime involving restraint of the victim, both growing out of a continuing course of conduct, . . . only when the detention committed in the act of abduction is separate and apart from, and not merely incidental to, the restraint employed in the commission of the other crime." Brown v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 310, 314, 337 S.E.2d 711, 713-14 (1985).

Powell v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 512, 540-41, 522 S.E.2d 344, 361

(2001).

Appellant cites Brown v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 310, 337

S.E.2d 711 (1985), to support his position. To the contrary,

the facts in Brown support the conviction. In Brown, the

appellant entered victim's car, struck her, threatened her and

- 4 - then drove to a secluded location, where the sexual assault took

place. Id. at 312, 337 S.E.2d at 712. The Supreme Court found

"the detention underlying the abduction conviction was not the

kind of restraint that is inherent in the act of rape." Id. at

314, 337 S.E.2d at 714.

Appellant argues, "[t]he only evidence of restraint was

that [appellant] laid [sic] on top of [KM]." Appellant ignores

KM's testimony that appellant grabbed her as she tried to leave

the room. Appellant also ignores the testimony that appellant

tricked KM into leaving the bathroom and into entering his

bedroom by asking for water. See Kent v. Commonwealth, 165 Va.

840, 183 S.E. 177 (1935) (defendant induced victim to accompany

him in his car with the promise he would re-pay victim for an

outstanding debt). Neither of these acts was "inherent in" the

commission of object sexual penetration or indecent liberties.

In fact, both the grabbing and the inducement occurred prior to

these other crimes, which occurred on the bed. Clearly, the

record includes evidence to support all the elements of the

crime of abduction.

Appellant argues Reed v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 65, 366

S.E.2d 274 (1988), allows this Court to apply the ends of

justice exception to Rule 5A:18 in the case of sufficiency

arguments.

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

Related

Powell v. Commonwealth
552 S.E.2d 344 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2001)
Michaels v. Commonwealth
529 S.E.2d 822 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2000)
Ohree v. Commonwealth
494 S.E.2d 484 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1998)
Redman v. Commonwealth
487 S.E.2d 269 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1997)
Jacques v. Commonwealth
405 S.E.2d 630 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1991)
Brown v. Commonwealth
380 S.E.2d 8 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1989)
Brown v. Commonwealth
337 S.E.2d 711 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1985)
Reed v. Commonwealth
366 S.E.2d 274 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1988)
Kent v. Commonwealth
183 S.E. 177 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1936)
Mounce v. Commonwealth
357 S.E.2d 742 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Marvin D. Dade v. Commonwealth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marvin-d-dade-v-commonwealth-vactapp-2003.