Opinion ID: 1058104
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Abduction with Intent to Defile

Text: The evidence introduced at trial, independent of the affidavit, overwhelmingly demonstrates that admission of the affidavit was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the abduction with intent to defile convictiona predicate offense for the capital murder conviction. Code § 18.2-48 states in relevant part, [a]bduction . . . of any person with intent to defile such person . . . shall be a Class 2 felony. The crime incorporates the charge of abduction under Code § 18.2-47(A), which states: Any person who, by force, intimidation or deception, and without legal justification or excuse, seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty or to withhold or conceal him from any person, authority or institution lawfully entitled to his charge, shall be deemed guilty of abduction. The distinguishing feature between the charge of abduction and abduction with intent to defile is the specific intent required by the latter. McKinley v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 1, 4, 225 S.E.2d 352, 353 (1976). Abduction with intent to defile is a more serious offense than abduction with intent only to deprive one of personal liberty. In order to prove the greater offense of abduction with intent to defile, the evidence must show that Crawford abducted Sarah with the intent to sexually molest her. Wilson v. Commonwealth, 249 Va. 95, 103, 452 S.E.2d 669, 675 (1995); see also Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 615, 632, 292 S.E.2d 798, 808 (1982) (holding that the terms sexually molest and defile are interchangeable). In Wilson, we upheld the defendant's conviction for abduction with intent to defile based on evidence showing that the victim was tied to her bed, arms and legs spread apart, with semen observed on her body. Wilson, 249 Va. at 99, 103-04, 452 S.E.2d at 673, 675. Similarly, the evidence here, independent of the affidavit, was sufficient to show that Sarah did not voluntarily travel with Crawford, but rather that Crawford abducted her against her will. Sarah had plans for a hair appointment and to go on a date with another man the weekend she disappeared. She also failed to report to work the day she disappeared, despite telling her supervisor she would be at work by 1:00 p.m. Additionally, a box that belonged to Sarah's employer was found on the side of the road, with Sarah's blood on it, in Fauquier County on the morning Sarah disappeared. Sarah's supervisor testified that Sarah was supposed to ship that box for him. Sarah's cell phone was also found on the side of the road in Manassas, Virginia that same morning. Records from Sarah's cell phone showed that Sarah called Crawford twice on the morning of November 19, 2004, once at 7:52 a.m. and once at 8:52 a.m. Sarah did not appear to have packed anything, and she left all of her luggage at home. Moreover, Crawford admitted that Sarah was shot inside her car. The driver's-side window of Sarah's car was broken and Sarah's blood was found on both the driver's and rear seats of the vehicle. Crawford also admitted that he took Sarah to a motel in Charlottesville and left her there alone after the shooting. An expert witness testified that Sarah could not move after she was shot because the bullet severed her spine. Consequently, she could not have gone to or entered the motel room on her own volition. The medical examiner testified that Sarah could have lived for an hour after she was shot. The medical examiner also testified that Sarah had several bruises, scratches, and abrasions on her neck and hands, injuries that Sarah's parents confirmed she did not have when they last saw her. Additionally, several witnesses testified concerning Crawford's violent nature and Sarah's intense fear of him. Sarah's father testified that Crawford threw a table into the room and broke it when Sarah attempted to remove her belongings from the apartment she had shared with Crawford previously. This incident was described in detail in the affidavit. It was also offered into evidence through the testimony of Sarah's father, illustrating the merely cumulative nature of statements contained in Sarah's affidavit. Sarah's mother also testified that Crawford threatened Sarah when she moved out, telling her, You'll pay for this. A police officer, who responded to the couple's home when Sarah was moving out, testified that Crawford acted in an intimidating and overbearing manner, and appeared to threaten her. Sarah's supervisor and co-worker both testified about their knowledge of Sarah's fear of Crawford. Sarah's supervisor testified that he was not surprised to learn about the protective order against Crawford, given the history between them. Independent of the affidavit, the evidence, including the voluminous testimony and evidence demonstrating Crawford's history of violence and threats toward Sarah, the protective order, Sarah's plans for the weekend, the physical evidence of the box and her cell phone, Crawford's admission that Sarah was shot in her car, and the fact that she was paralyzed from the wound, overwhelmingly demonstrates, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sarah did not go with Crawford willingly to Charlottesville and certainly did not go willingly from the car to the motel room. Moreover, the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Crawford abducted Sarah with the intent to defile her. After she was shot, Crawford took Sarah directly to the motel room, completely undressed her and left her paralyzed on the bed, naked and positioned on her back with her thighs spread, in a sexually suggestive position. Crawford's semen was found inside Sarah's vagina, and sperm was found in or around Sarah's mouth and anus. Just as in Wilson, 249 Va. at 98-100, 103-04, 452 S.E.2d at 672-73, 675, this evidence alone is sufficient, independent of the affidavit, to conclude that Crawford abducted Sarah with the intent to defile her, particularly as Crawford was still in the process of abducting Sarah when he disrobed her and left her naked and paralyzed in the motel. Significantly, the preliminary protective order admitted into evidence at trial without objection by Crawford informed the jury that a court had recently found evidence sufficient to establish probable cause that family abuse, including forceful detention, resulting in physical injury to [Sarah] or placing [her] in reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury, had recently occurred. Therefore, after considering the factors outlined in Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. at 1438, including the importance of the [tainted evidence] in the prosecution's case, whether [that evidence] was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the [tainted evidence] on material points [and] the overall strength of the prosecution's case, we hold that the admission of the affidavit constitutes harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to Crawford's conviction for abduction with intent to defile.