Horton v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Virginia
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kinser
In these cases, we decide whether there is sufficient evidence of penetration to support the defendants’ convictions of forcible sodomy by engaging in cunnilingus in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1. Because the evidence in each case proves that the respective defendant penetrated the outer portion of his victim’s genitalia, we will affirm the convictions.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The applicable standard of review is as follows:
Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged after conviction, it is our duty to consider it in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and give it all reasonable…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Higginbotham v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1975
- State v. KishSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Moore v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1997
- State v. BrownNebraska Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. LudlumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Burns v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 2001
- Walker v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1999
- Commonwealth v. TaylorSupreme Court of Virginia · 1998
- Shackleford v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 2001
- Hickson v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1999
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.