Opinion ID: 1058979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Viney maintains that his conduct amounts to no more than indecent exposure punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor. Code § 18.2-387. He asserts that lack of proof of lascivious intent precludes his conviction for a felony. Viney and the Commonwealth agree that only one of the four factors mentioned in McKeon is at issue in this case: that the defendant made gestures toward himself or to the child. Viney contends that his glance down, as a matter of law, is far short of what has ever been considered a `gesture' sufficient to establish `lascivious intent.' He argues that eye movements do not constitute a gesture and that, even if considered a gesture, his eye movements in this case cannot prove lascivious intent. The Commonwealth replies that a rational trier of fact could conclude that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Viney's eye movement, combined with the purposeful movement of his shorts was a gesture sufficient to prove he exposed his penis with lascivious intent. We agree with Viney that, absent proof of lascivious intent, he could only be found guilty of misdemeanor indecent exposure under Code § 18.2-387. However, we agree with the Commonwealth that the proof in this case satisfies the evidentiary standard for lascivious intent under Code § 18.2-370. A gesture is a movement usually of the body or limbs that symbolizes or emphasizes an idea, sentiment, or attitude. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 952-53 (1993). While Viney apparently disagrees, we have little trouble concluding that the eyes are a part of the body and that they are used for non-verbal communicative purposes. But this case is not about eye movements or glances alone. The evidence proves that Viney made eye contact with the girls and then directed their attention to his groin area by intentionally glancing down. Only then did he intentionally pull his shorts aside to expose his previously unexposed penis. Unquestionably, Viney's acts qualify as a gesture. The remaining issue is his intent. Intent may be, and most often is, proven by circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from proven facts. Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 512-14, 578 S.E.2d 781, 785-86, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 972, 124 S.Ct. 444, 157 L.Ed.2d 322 (2003). Viney urges us to compare the facts of previous opinions of the Court in consideration of proof of lascivious intent. Upon doing so, we conclude that the Commonwealth's proof was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Viney acted with lascivious intent. In McKeon, the defendant was dressed in a bathrobe standing on his porch. He called to a young girl to turn around. When she did so, she saw him smiling, with his hands on his hips and his robe open in the front exposing his private parts. 211 Va. at 24-25, 175 S.E.2d at 283. We noted there was no evidence that the defendant was sexually aroused; that he made any gestures toward himself or to her; that he made any improper remarks to her; or that he asked her to do anything wrong. Id. at 27, 175 S.E.2d at 284. We reversed McKeon's conviction for lack of proof of lascivious intent beyond a reasonable doubt. By contrast, in this case, Viney's gesture included making eye contact with the girls and then, by glancing down to his groin, he directed their eyes to his groin. Having directed their attention to his groin, he then moved his shorts aside and exposed his penis. In Breeding v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 344, 192 S.E.2d 807 (1972) (per curiam), we held that the accused did not act with lascivious intent when he drove to an area where two girls were playing and asked them for directions. He was seated in the car with his trousers unbuckled and unzipped. The girls testified that they saw his privacy. Id. at 344, 192 S.E.2d at 807. We held that there was no evidence that Breeding made any suggestive remarks or gestures and there was no evidence he was sexually aroused. Id. at 344-45, 192 S.E.2d at 807. As in McKeon, it was the lack of proof of particular acts from which inferences of intent could be drawn that caused this Court to reverse Breeding's conviction. Viney's conduct evincing his intent is more akin to the facts presented in Campbell v. Commonwealth . The evidence proved that Campbell had been hiding behind a bush. He gestured toward himself to get the attention of an 8 year old girl. Upon getting her attention, he pulled his pants off to his knees, exposing his genitalia. Campbell, 227 Va. at 197-98, 313 S.E.2d at 403. After he exposed himself, Campbell beckoned to the girl again. Id. at 198, 313 S.E.2d at 403. Like Campbell, Viney used a gesture to direct attention to himself and more particularly to his groin area. Like Campbell, after Viney directed the girls' attention to his groin, he purposefully adjusted his clothing to expose his previously unexposed penis. Because of gestures and other direct and circumstantial evidence taken in context, the evidence proves that Viney exposed his genital parts to two children while evincing a state of mind that is eager for sexual indulgence, desirous of inciting to lust or of inciting sexual desire and appetite. McKeon, 211 Va. at 27, 175 S.E.2d at 284. Upon consideration of our case law and the facts of this case, we cannot say that the trial court was plainly wrong or without evidence to support its judgment. Nor can we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in its affirmation of the trial court's judgment.