COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

BARRY EDWARDS ENGLISH 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0947-96-3 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 APRIL 29, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY 

William N. Alexander, II, Judge 

 W. Clarke Whitfield, Jr. (Turner, Haskins & 

Whitfield, PLC, on brief), for appellant. 

 Monica S. McElyea, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Barry Edwards English (defendant) was convicted in a bench 

trial of three counts of aggravated sexual battery in violation 

of Code § 18.2-67.3 and one count of forcible sodomy in violation 

of Code § 18.2-67.1. On appeal, he complains that the evidence 

was insufficient to support the convictions. We disagree and 

affirm the trial court. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this 

memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a 

disposition of the appeal. 

 Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

therefrom. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 

S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). The judgment of a trial court, sitting 

without a jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict 

and will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence 

to support it. See id. The credibility of a witness, the weight 

accorded the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from 

proven facts are matters solely for the fact finder's 

determination. See Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 

379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989). An appellate court "should not . . . 

substitute its own judgment [on these issues], even if its 

opinion might differ from [the fact finder's]." George v. 

Commonwealth, 242 Va. 264, 278, 411 S.E.2d 12, 20 (1991) (quoting 

Snyder v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 1009, 1016, 121 S.E.2d 452, 457 

(1961)), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 973 (1992). 

 Here, the offenses occurred in the fall of 1989 and were not 

reported until 1995. However, the victim was only nine or ten 

years of age when assaulted, and defendant, with a history of 

violence, threatened to harm both her and her family if she 

reported the abuse. Following the crimes, defendant was 

imprisoned on unrelated convictions, and the victim spoke only 

after learning of his imminent release. The significance, if 

any, attributable to such delay is a matter for consideration by 

the fact finder, and the mere "failure to immediately report the 

incident [does] not render [a victim's] testimony inherently 

incredible as a matter of law." See Corvin v. Commonwealth, 13 
- 3 - 

Va. App. 296, 299, 411 S.E.2d 235, 237 (1991). Under the instant 

circumstances, the court correctly concluded that the victim's 

conduct was reasonable and did not discredit her testimony. 

 Moreover, other evidence provided ample support for the 

convictions. Defendant had resided in the home with the victim 

and her mother between early September and late November, 1989, 

and was regularly alone with the child. The victim recounted the 

offending events in detail, and her testimony was alone 

sufficient to establish defendant's guilt. See, e.g., id. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the convictions. 

 Affirmed.