Elam v. Commonwealth

25 Citing cases

  1. Roberts v. Commonwealth

    Record No. 2958-08-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2010)

    "Penetration by a penis of a vagina is an essential element of the crime of rape."Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686 (1985). But "[t]he penetration necessary to constitute rape need only be slight.

  2. Moore v. Commonwealth

    254 Va. 184 (Va. 1997)   Cited 82 times
    Holding the victim's equivocal testimony and her lack of knowledge of the intricacies of the female genitalia created doubt as to the merits of the facts, causing the court to ultimately decide the evidence was insufficient to show penetration

    [3-4] "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." Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686 (1985). And, a conviction of rape may be sustained solely upon the victim's testimony.

  3. Taylor v. Commonwealth

    21 Va. App. 557 (Va. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that an expert's testimony corroborating "the fact that the victim had suffered a traumatizing event, as evidenced by her mental condition, . . . neither [constituted] [an] expression of an opinion on the victim's credibility nor an opinion as to which version of events should be accepted by the jury"

    " Loving v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 761, 765, 182 S.E. 224, 225 (1935) (emphasis added).See also Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686-87 (1985) (holding medical and forensic evidence of physical injury to be sufficient circumstantial evidence, along with other evidence, to prove rape, despite the prosecutrix's testimony that she did not believe she had been raped); Tuggle v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 493, 510-11, 323 S.E.2d 539, 549-50 (1984) (holding medical evidence of physical injuries sufficient as circumstantial evidence to prove rape), judgment vacated on other grounds, 471 U.S. 1096, 105 S.Ct. 2315 (1985). Similarly, this Court has held that expert testimony on battered child syndrome "`is not an opinion regarding the culpability of any particular defendant. . . . [It] merely tends to show that the child was intentionally, rather than accidentally, injured.'"

  4. Perez-Amaya v. Commonwealth

    Record No. 2780-05-4 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2006)

    In Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686-87 (1985), the Supreme Court of Virginia held: 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.

  5. Morrison v. Commonwealth

    10 Va. App. 300 (Va. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that although the victim never testified directly that penetration occurred, her testimony regarding sexual contact and doctor's testimony that some object penetrated her vagina were sufficient to prove accused guilty of rape

    Penetration may be proved by circumstantial evidence and is not dependent on direct testimony from the victim that penetration occurred. See Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686-87 (1985). Furthermore, in the context of a sodomy charge, "[e]vidence of the condition, position, and proximity of the parties . . . may afford sufficient evidence of penetration. . . ."

  6. Kehinde v. Commonwealth

    338 S.E.2d 356 (Va. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 13 times
    Approving of the use of illustrative evidence "to clarify witness' explanation and to insure a common understanding between the witness and [the trier of fact] as to the events which took place"

    One essential element of rape is penetration, however slight, of a vagina by a penis. Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686 (1985). This element, as with any other, may be established solely by the testimony of the victim unless such testimony is inherently incredible or so contrary to human experience or usual human behavior as to render it unworthy of belief.

  7. Tuggle v. Thompson

    57 F.3d 1356 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 16 times
    Noting that state court fact findings in habeas review are "presumed to be correct and [are] binding on the federal district court"

    Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319-20 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. at 2789 n. 13. In Elam v. Virginia, 229 Va. 113, 326 S.E.2d 685 (1985), the Virginia Supreme Court held: 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 other 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.

  8. Lewis v. Dotson

    CIVIL 3:24cv101 (DJN) (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2024)

    . See Elam v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 113, 115 (1985) (“Penetration by a penis of a vagina is an essential element of the crime of rape[.]”); Love v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 84, 88 (1994) (finding that “penetration of any portion of the vulva-which encompasses the ‘external parts of the female sex organs considered as a whole' and includes, beginning with the outermost parts, the labia majora, labia minora, hymen, vaginal opening and vagina-is sufficient to show penetration” (citation omitted)). Z.S. also testified that appellant put his fingers in her vagina. Z.S.'s testimony permitted the jury to find that appellant penetrated her vagina with both his penis and fingers, by force or intimidation, and against her will.

  9. Shearrin v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail

    Civil Action No. 3:11CV138-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2011)

    ) Virginia requires proof of penetration to sustain a conviction for rape. Elam v. Commonwealth, 326 S.E.2d 685, 686 (Va. 1985) ("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. . . ."). Proof of penetration, or any other element of rape, may consist solely of testimony from the victim unless that testimony is inherently incredible or so contrary to human experience as to render it unbelievable.

  10. Johnson v. Commonwealth

    259 Va. 654 (Va. 2000)   Cited 119 times
    Finding Virginia prisoners must bring ineffective assistance claims in state collateral proceedings

    "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." 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.