Copeland v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIS, Judge.
On appeal from his convictions of indecent exposure, in violation of Code § 18.2-387, and peeping into a dwelling, in violation of Code § 18.2-130, Paul L. Copeland contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of indecent exposure, (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of window peeping, and (3) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike either or both counts, because the counts contained mutually exclusive elements. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Background
Oh appeal, we review the evidence in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Martin v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1987
- Barr v. Town & Country Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1990
- Freeman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1982
- House v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1969
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Allman v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2004
- Lofgren v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2009
- Moses v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2004
- A. M. v. Commonwealth of Virginia 1150-12-4Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2013
- Commonwealth v. ScottVirginia Circuit Court · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.