Noblett v. Commonwealth

26 Citing cases

  1. William Poole v. Commonwealth

    211 Va. 258 (Va. 1970)   Cited 23 times
    In Poole v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 258, 260-61, 176 S.E.2d 821, 823-24 (1970), we held that the refusal of the trial court to give an identity instruction which was couched in the same language as the one refused in Noblett was not error because the jury was fully instructed on presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt and a separate identity instruction was not required.

    It was necessary, therefore, he says, that the "jury should have had a specific instruction" so that it might "properly consider the issue of identification." It is true, as the defendant points out, that in Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241, 247, 72 S.E.2d 241, 244-45 (1952), we reversed for the trial court's refusal to grant a similar instruction where, as here, identity of the accused was a vital issue. And it is likewise true that in Noblett, as here, the jury was told, in other instructions, that the accused was presumed to be innocent and that his guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

  2. Hillman v. Commonwealth

    68 Va. App. 585 (Va. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 26 times
    In Hillman v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 585, 593-94, 811 S.E.2d 853, 857 (2018), the Court rejected the defendant's argument that he did not "expose" himself to a minor within the meaning of ยง 18.2-370 because he was never in the physical presence of the minor, instead finding that the "plain meaning" of the statutory term "expose" included "sen[ding] photographs of his genitals to [the minor] via Snapchat."

    Id. at 699, 508 S.E.2d at 353 (emphasis added). In the second case, Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241, 244, 72 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1952), our Supreme Court relied on common law principles to support a conviction of indecent exposure. The Court in Holley cited Noblett for the proposition that "[a]n indecent exposure must be either in the actual presence and sight of others, or in such a place or under such circumstances that the exhibition is liable to be seen by others.

  3. Moses v. Com

    45 Va. App. 357 (Va. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 14 times
    Affirming the defendant's conviction based in part on his statement that his underlying motive was "the need to fulfill [his] sex drive"

    The cases he relies upon, however, do not once mention or discuss the word display as used in Code ยง 18.2-387. See, e.g., Wicks v. Charlottesville, 215 Va. 274, 274-75, 208 S.E.2d 752, 753-54 (1974) (interpreting local ordinance stating that no "person shall expose himself"); Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241, 72 S.E.2d 241 (1952) (affirming a conviction on an indictment alleging that the defendant exposed himself); Siquina v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 694, 697-99, 508 S.E.2d 350, 352-53 (1998) (interpreting the indecent liberties statute, which forbids exposing one's sexual or genital parts to a child). They instead focus entirely on the meaning of "expose."

  4. Moses v. Commonwealth

    43 Va. App. 565 (Va. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    At common law, indecent exposure involved intentionally exposing one's private parts in a manner that same could reasonably have been seen by members of the public.Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241, 244-46, 72 S.E.2d 241, 243-44 (1952) (citing definitions indicating the offense is committed where the "`act is seen or is likely to be seen'" (quoting 67 C.J.S. Obscenity ยง 5, at 25 (1950))). The Supreme Court of Virginia has recognized a definition of common law "indecent exposure" that requires "`[e]xposure to sight.'"

  5. Cooper v. Commonwealth

    277 Va. 377 (Va. 2009)   Cited 98 times

    " Id.          In Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241, 72 S.E.2d 241 (1952), where the defendant was charged with indecent exposure, we held that " [i]n so far as the decision in Mullins ... approves the form of the instruction [on alibi], it is overruled." Id. at 248, 72 S.E.2d at 245.

  6. Wisneski v. State

    398 Md. 578 (Md. 2007)   Cited 24 times
    Reviewing cases from other jurisdictions construing the common law and interpreting Maryland's common law crime of indecent exposure as requiring a public exposure that "was observed, or was likely to have been observed, by one or more persons"

    Again, potential exposure to others because of placement and time could constitute publication. In Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241, 72 S.E.2d 241 (1952), the defendant challenged his conviction for indecently exposing himself while sitting in a car on the side of the street based upon the fact that only one person saw him. The court affirmed the conviction, stating that at common law, it mattered not that only one person saw the defendant's conduct; rather, the determinative factor was whether, under the circumstances of the case, the defendant "could reasonably have been seen, or was likely to have been seen by persons using the street."

  7. Wicks v. Charlottesville

    215 Va. 274 (Va. 1974)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that a statute must be construed in conformity with the common law, which required that the indecent exposure occur in front of at least one person, or in a place where it is likely to be seen by at least one person

    The defendant gave no explanation or reason for his actions, and there is no suggestion that he was acting in extremis. In Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241, 245, 72 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1952), Mr. Justice Eggleston, later Chief Justice, made an exhaustive examination of the authorities defining common law obscenity and in his opinion said: It was stipulated that Officer D. L. Roberts of the Charlottesville City Police Department testified that:

  8. Ele v. Commonwealth

    Record No. 1602-18-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jul. 16, 2019)   Cited 7 times
    In Ele v. Commonwealth, 70 Va.App. 543, 553 (2019), the defendant was masturbating inches away from a child's face for an extended period while the child slept.

    Code ยง 18.2-387 requires that the "obscene display or exposure" occur "in any public place, or in any place where others are present," an element not included in the indecent liberties statute. Appellant relies on Wicks v. City of Charlottesville, 215 Va. 274 (1974), and Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241 (1952), to support his contention that he was improperly convicted of indecent liberties because he was not in public. However, both cases address indecent exposure, not indecent liberties with a minor.

  9. Mason v. Commonwealth

    Record No. 0309-97-2 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 1998)   Cited 2 times

    Id. See also Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241, 244-45, 72 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1952). The Court noted that "indecent exposure" means "'[e]xposure to sight of the private parts of the body in a lewd or indecent manner in a public place.'"

  10. United States v. Statler

    No. Crim. 00-281-MG (E.D. Va. Nov. 28, 2000)   Cited 6 times
    Finding the ACA did not assimilate Virginia's indecent exposure statute

    Worth noting here is that the same result would obtain under Justice Scalia's approach, as both Section 2.34 and the Virginia indecent exposure statute cover the same basic "offence" categories of lewdness and indecent exposure "generally understood to be part of the common law." Lewis, 523 U.S. at 179 (Scalia, J., concurring); see Noblett v. Commonwealth, 72 S.E.2d 241 (Va. 1952) (discussing the common-law offense of indecent exposure and "[a]cts of gross and open indecency or obscenity") (quotations omitted); see also 50 Am. Jur.2d 269 (1995) (discussing lewdness, indecency, and obscenity); 94 A.L.R.2d 1353 (1964). Seeking to avoid this result, the government offers two arguments.