Opinion ID: 2747285
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The accused forces the complaining

Text: witness to touch the accused's, the witness's own, or another person's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts. (Emphasis added.) Additionally, in 2007, the General Assembly enacted Code § 18.2-67.4:2, which provides that an accused is guilty of sexual abuse of a child under 15 if he with lascivious intent, commits an act of sexual abuse, as defined in § 18.2-67.10, with any child 13 years of age or older but under 15 years of age. 2007 Acts ch. 463. Because the General Assembly specifically removed Subsection 2 from Code § 18.2-370(A) and re-codified it as Code §§ 18.2-67.3, 18.2-67.4 and 18.2-67.10, and as recently as 2007 enacted Code § 18.2-67.4:2, we conclude that the General Assembly did not intend for Code § 18.2-370(A) to continue to criminalize fondling, or situations where the accused forces the complaining witness to touch the accused's genitalia. The interpretation given by the Court of Appeals renders at least one of these statutes superfluous and ignores 7 the General Assembly's specific act of segregating the crime of fondling/molestation from the crime of taking indecent liberties with minors. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred by holding that Code § 18.2-370(A) proscribes the same conduct as Code §§ 18.2-67.3, 18.2-67.4, 18.2-67.4:2 and 18.2-67.10.