Title: Horton v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 971645
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: April 17, 1998

Present: All the Justices 
 
THOMAS E. HORTON, SR. 
 
v.  Record No.  971645 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
April 17, 1998 
GEORGE R. NEWBY, JR. 
 
v.  Record No.  971576 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
 
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 inferences 
fairly deducible therefrom.  We should affirm the 
judgment unless it appears from the evidence that the 
judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to 
support it. 
 
Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 
534, 537 (1975); see also Code § 8.01-680.  Thus, we will 
present the facts of each case in the light most favorable 
to the Commonwealth. 
II.  FACTS 
Horton v. Commonwealth 
 
On February 6, 1996, H.H.,1 age 12, was asleep in her 
bedroom.  She was alone in the house because her parents 
were at work.  At approximately 1:48 a.m., H.H. awoke to 
find someone standing at the door of her bedroom.  
Initially, H.H. thought it was her father, but she realized 
it was not when she looked at her clock and saw the time.  
H.H. testified that as the man approached her, she could 
see that he was wearing what she described as a “hunting 
mask” which left his eyes, nose and mouth uncovered.  When 
the man came closer to her, H.H. started kicking and 
screaming, and the man sprayed something in her eyes or 
face that burned.  When the man realized that she could 
still see, he sprayed her again.  However, before spraying 
her the second time, he had removed his mask, and H.H. 
recognized the man as Thomas E. Horton, Sr., her neighbor.  
                     
1 Full name deleted by the Court. 
 
 
2
Even before seeing his face, H.H. had recognized Horton’s 
voice. 
Horton then handcuffed H.H.’s wrists together, pulled 
down her purple jogging shorts, pulled up her shirt, and 
got on top of her.  Horton had also pulled down his pants.  
Asserting that she knew the words for the parts of the body 
because of a Family Life course she took at school, H.H. 
said she felt his penis on the inside of her leg and 
described how Horton spread her legs apart, pulled up her 
shirt, and “licked [her] boobs.”  When asked if Horton 
tried to do anything else, H.H. stated that he tried “[to] 
get his penis in my vagina,” but he was unable to do so.  
H.H. then testified as follows: 
Q.  Did he do anything else to your vagina? 
 
A.  He licked it. 
 
Q.  He licked it? 
 
A.  Yes. 
 
Q.  With his tongue? 
 
A.  Yes.   
When H.H. told Horton she needed to go to the 
bathroom, he removed the handcuffs and allowed her to go.  
However, Horton accompanied her to the bathroom and forced 
her to wash.  H.H. testified that upon their return to the 
bedroom, Horton threatened to kill her if she told her 
 
3
parents.  He finally departed around 2:30 a.m.  H.H. did 
not telephone the 911 emergency number for help because she 
was afraid that Horton had remained somewhere on the 
premises.  H.H. told her parents about the incident when 
they returned home at approximately 5:00 a.m.  The police 
were notified shortly thereafter. 
 
A.C. Powers of the Augusta County Sheriff’s Department 
investigated the incident.  He recovered an empty condom 
pack and a condom wrapper on the floor of H.H.’s bedroom.  
Since H.H. identified her assailant as Horton, Powers went 
to Horton’s residence.  He subsequently searched Horton’s 
truck and residence where he found a mask matching the one 
described by H.H., handcuffs, a canister of pepper spray, 
and two unused condoms. 
 
At trial, Horton moved to strike the Commonwealth’s 
evidence on the basis that there was insufficient proof of 
penetration to support the sodomy charge.  He renewed this 
motion at the close of all the evidence.  The trial court 
overruled the motions, and the jury found Horton guilty of 
forcible sodomy.2
                     
2 The jury also convicted Horton of breaking and 
entering, attempted rape, and wearing a mask.  These 
convictions are not before the Court on this appeal. 
 
 
4
 
On October 29, 1996, the trial court denied Horton’s 
motion to set aside the verdict and entered judgment on the 
jury’s verdict.  Horton then filed a petition for appeal in 
the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which both a single judge 
and a three-judge panel denied.  Horton appeals. 
Newby v. Commonwealth 
 
 
The victim in this case, D.C.,3 began a new job as a 
waitress/bartender at a restaurant in Chesterfield County 
on March 13, 1995.  During that evening, she noticed George 
R. Newby, Jr., in the restaurant because he made several 
remarks to her about her marriage and appearance.  When a 
co-worker announced that it was closing time, the remaining 
customers, including Newby, exited the restaurant.  While 
D.C. cleaned up, the co-worker attempted to lock the door 
but had difficulty with the lock.  Newby then re-entered 
the restaurant on the pretext of helping with the lock and 
remained until D.C. and the co-worker left.  As D.C. walked 
to her car, Newby asked her if she would give him a ride 
home, and she agreed. 
 
Newby directed D.C. where to drive, and she eventually 
arrived in front of a building that Newby described as “his 
club.”  D.C. testified that Newby then brought his left arm 
                     
3 Full name deleted by the Court. 
 
 
5
around her neck and started squeezing her.  She honked her 
horn, but Newby told her to take her hand off the horn or 
he would kill her.  D.C. testified that Newby held 
something with a sharp blade across her nose. 
Then, according to D.C., Newby forced her from the car 
and pulled her in the direction of some woods adjacent to 
the building.  Newby forced D.C. to remove her clothes and 
lie flat on her back.  He then “put his penis in [her] 
vagina.”  Because her vaginal area was dry and 
unlubricated, Newby pulled his penis out of her vagina.  
D.C. testified that Newby next “put his mouth on my vaginal 
area and he drooled and I know this because it was so cold, 
I could feel the heat . . . .”  When asked if Newby’s mouth 
was specifically on her vaginal area, D.C. replied that he 
was “on my vulva area.”  D.C. further testified that Newby 
put his penis back in her vagina and that he put his mouth 
on her genitalia at least twice. 
Newby forced D.C. to engage in sexually explicit 
conversation with him, and he eventually ejaculated inside 
her.  Newby then returned D.C.’s clothes to her but 
threatened that he would kill her and her children if she 
told anybody about what he had done.  According to D.C., 
Newby said, “This isn’t the first time that I raped and you 
better not be the first one to tell.”  Newby allowed D.C. 
 
6
to get dressed and return to her car, but she drove her car 
into a ditch.  Newby tried unsuccessfully to help D.C. 
remove the car from the ditch.  D.C. eventually walked to a 
gas station where she telephoned a friend.  The friend and 
the police arrived shortly thereafter. 
 
At trial, Newby’s defense was that D.C. consented to 
the sexual activity.  In support of his defense, Newby 
testified, “I did lick Mrs. [C.’s] vaginal area and I did 
penetrate her with my penis and have sex, but at no time 
did she say, ‘No,’ did she say ‘Stop,’ or anything.” 
 
At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence and 
at the close of all the evidence, Newby moved to strike the 
evidence on the basis that the Commonwealth had failed to 
prove penetration on the sodomy charge.  The trial court 
overruled both motions.  The jury convicted Newby of 
forcible sodomy.4
 
The Court of Appeals of Virginia awarded Newby an 
appeal and affirmed his conviction of forcible sodomy in an 
unpublished opinion dated July 1, l997.  The Court of 
Appeals reasoned that the jury could have found that 
Newby’s mouth penetrated D.C.’s vulva during the protracted 
                     
4 The jury also convicted Newby of inanimate object 
sexual penetration and rape.  These convictions are not 
before the Court on this appeal. 
 
 
7
assault and in the course of his effort to moisten her 
genitalia.  Newby appeals. 
III.  ANALYSIS 
The issue in these cases is what constitutes 
sufficient evidence of penetration to support a conviction 
of forcible sodomy by engaging in cunnilingus in violation 
of Code § 18.2-67.1.5  “[P]enetration is an essential 
element of the crime of sodomy.”  Ryan v. Commonwealth, 219 
Va. 439, 444, 247 S.E.2d 698, 702 (1978).  However, 
penetration in sodomy, as in rape, can be proved by 
circumstantial evidence, and the penetration “need be only 
slight.”  Id. 
To resolve this issue, we first address the definition 
of cunnilingus.  Since Code § 18.2-67.1 does not define 
“cunnilingus,” we must give the term its ordinary meaning.  
                     
5 The pertinent provisions of Code § 18.2-67.1 state 
the following: 
 
A.  An accused shall be guilty of forcible sodomy  
if he or she engages in cunnilingus, fellatio, 
anallingus, or anal intercourse with a complaining 
witness who is not his or her spouse, or causes a 
complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, 
to engage in such acts with any other person, and 
1.  The complaining witness is less than thirteen 
years of age, or 
2.  The act is accomplished against the will of 
the complaining witness, by force, threat or 
intimidation of or against the complaining witness or 
another person, or through the use of the complaining 
witness’s mental incapacity or physical helplessness. 
 
8
McKeon v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 24, 27, 175 S.E.2d 282, 284 
(1970).  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 554 
(1993) defines cunnilingus as “stimulation of the vulva or 
clitoris with the lips or tongue.”  The term “cunnilingus” 
derives from the Latin words cunnus meaning vulva and 
lingere meaning to lick.  Id.  See also Black’s Law 
Dictionary 380 (6th ed. 1990) (“[a]n act of sex committed 
with the mouth and the female sexual organ”). 
 
Our inquiry does not stop with the definition of 
cunnilingus.  We must also address the anatomy of the 
female genitalia in relation to the act of cunnilingus.  
The female external genitalia, starting with the outermost 
parts, are: “the mons pubis, the labia majora et minora 
pudendi, the clitoris, vestibule, vestibular bulb and the 
greater vestibular glands.  The term ‘vulva’ . . . includes 
all these parts.”  Henry Gray, Anatomy, Descriptive and 
Surgical 1446 (Peter L. Williams et al. eds., 37th ed. 
1989); see also Lawyers’ Medical Cyclopedia of Personal 
Injuries and Allied Specialties 534 (Richard M. Patterson 
ed., 4th ed. Vol 5A 1997); accord State v. Ludlum, 281 
S.E.2d 159, 162 (N.C. 1981). 
We have previously recognized the significance of the 
anatomical structure of the female genitalia in relation to 
the element of penetration.  In Moore v. Commonwealth, 254 
 
9
Va. 184, 190, 491 S.E.2d 739, 742 (1997), we referenced the 
Court of Appeals’ statement in Love v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. 
App. 84, 88, 441 S.E.2d 709, 712 (1994) 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.”  In Rowland v. 
Commonwealth, 147 Va. 636, 136 S.E. 564 (1927), we held 
that penetration of the vulva was sufficient to affirm a 
conviction of rape.  In that case, the doctor who had 
examined the victim testified that he was unable to “insert 
his finger in the female organ” because the hymen was 
intact but that there might have been penetration of the 
vulva without injury to the hymen.  Id. at 638, 136 S.E. at 
565. 
Since cunnilingus involves stimulation of the vulva or 
clitoris and the vulva encompasses the outermost part of 
the female genitalia, we conclude that penetration of any 
portion of the vulva is sufficient to prove sodomy by 
cunnilingus.  Penetration of the vaginal opening or vagina 
is not required.  In other words, “insertion of the 
defendant’s tongue into the victim’s vagina need not be 
shown to prove cunnilingus.”  Love, 18 Va. App. at 88, 441 
 
10
S.E.2d at 712; accord State v. Kish, 443 A.2d 1274, 1278 
(Conn. 1982); Partain v. State, 492 A.2d 669, 672 (Md. Ct. 
Spec. App. 1985); State v. Thompson, 574 S.W.2d 432, 434 
(Mo. Ct. App. 1977); State v. Brown, 405 N.W.2d 600, 607 
(Neb. 1987); State v. Fraction, 503 A.2d 336, 338 (N.J. 
Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985); Ludlum, 281 S.E.2d at 162; 
State v. Beaulieu, 674 A.2d 377, 378 (R.I. 1996). 
 
Turning now to the evidence in Horton’s case, H.H. 
testified, in response to a question whether Horton did 
anything else to her vagina, that he licked it with his 
tongue.  According to H.H., this act occurred after Horton 
had unsuccessfully tried to insert his penis into her 
vagina.  Because of a Family Life course she took at 
school, H.H. asserted that she knew the words for the parts 
of the body.  Her comprehension is evidenced by the fact 
that she herself used the words “vagina” and “penis” in 
describing Horton’s attempt to insert his penis into her 
vagina. 
Therefore, we conclude that this evidence, taken in 
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, is sufficient 
to establish that Horton penetrated the vulva or outermost 
portion of H.H.’s genitalia when he licked her vagina, and 
in doing so, committed the act of sodomy by cunnilingus in 
violation of Code § 18.2-67.1.  Horton’s conviction is not 
 
11
“plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.”  
Higginbotham, 216 Va. at 352, 218 S.E.2d at 537. 
 
We reach the same conclusion in Newby's case.  D.C. 
testified that Newby “put his penis in [her] vagina” but 
pulled it out because she was unlubricated.  Newby then 
“put his mouth on [D.C.’s] vaginal area and . . . drooled.”  
The jury could have inferred from this evidence that Newby 
licked D.C.’s vagina or vaginal opening for the purpose of 
lubricating her since he then re-inserted his penis into 
her vagina.  Furthermore, D.C. specifically stated that 
Newby’s mouth was on her vulva, and Newby admitted that he 
licked D.C.’s vaginal area.  This evidence proves 
penetration of D.C.’s outermost genitalia and is sufficient 
evidence upon which to affirm Newby’s conviction of 
forcible sodomy by engaging in cunnilingus.  See also Ryan, 
219 Va. at 444-45, 247 S.E.2d at 702 (affirming conviction 
for carnal knowledge by mouth in which victim testified 
that defendant licked her vagina with his tongue after 
attempting unsuccessfully to engage in sexual intercourse). 
Both Newby and Horton argue that our decision in Moore 
is dispositive and underscores the insufficiency of the 
evidence of penetration in their respective cases.  We do 
not agree.  The critical factor in Moore was the victim’s 
ambiguous testimony.  The victim did not know or could not 
 
12
adequately describe the structure of her sexual anatomy and 
used the term “vagina” generally to describe the external 
portion of her genitalia.  Her testimony during the 
Commonwealth’s case-in-chief demonstrated her lack of 
understanding since she testified that the defendant placed 
his penis “both ‘in’ and ‘on’ her vagina.”  Moore, 254 Va. 
at 187-88, 491 S.E.2d at 741.  Finding the Commonwealth’s 
evidence thus in a “state of equipoise on an essential 
element of the crime,” we concluded that proof of 
penetration failed as a matter of law.  Id. at 189, 491 
S.E.2d at 741.  See also Ashby v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 
443, 444, 158 S.E.2d 657, 658 (1968), cert. denied, 393 
U.S. 1111 (1969) (finding evidence that boy’s mouth was 
merely placed on man’s genitals insufficient to prove 
penetration). 
In contrast to Moore, neither H.H. nor D.C. testified 
equivocally about the nature of the sexual acts committed 
upon them by their respective assailants.  In addition, 
they each understood the structure of their genitalia and 
used the appropriate terms to describe their own anatomy as 
well as the anatomy of their assailant.  In no respect was 
the evidence in either Horton’s or Newby’s case in a “state 
of equipoise,” as it was in Moore. 
 
13
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the 
Court of Appeals in each case. 
Record Number 971645--Affirmed. 
Record Number 971576--Affirmed.
 
14