Alexander Earl Billow, s/k/a Alexander Earl Barlow v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1199163
| Va. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Victim (K.V.) was jogging on Aug. 9, 2015, when appellant (Alexander Earl Billow) stood beside the path masturbating and then lunged at her.
- Appellant body-slammed K.V., wrapped his arms around her, put his hand under her shirt, groped her breast, and tried to pull her off the path toward an embankment and river.
- K.V. testified she could not free her arms, was prevented from continuing her run, and felt pinned until appellant suddenly pushed her away and fled.
- Commonwealth charged appellant with abduction with intent to defile (Code § 18.2-48) and presented the above testimony at a bench trial.
- The trial court found K.V. credible, denied motions to strike, concluded the detention was more than incidental to the sexual assault, and convicted appellant; sentence: life with 20 years to serve (suspended). Appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved intent to deprive K.V. of liberty (abduction element) | Commonwealth: force that stopped K.V.’s run and struggle showed intent to detain and deprive liberty | Billow: detention was incidental to sexual assault; no separate intent to deprive liberty | Affirmed — trial court reasonably inferred intent from body‑slam, restraint, and attempt to move victim off path |
| Whether detention was separate from sexual assault (incidental detention doctrine) | Commonwealth: detention here was a separate, antecedent restraint enabling sexual molestation | Billow: any detention was merely incidental to the sexual assault and not a separate offense | Incidental‑detention doctrine inapplicable because only one conviction charged; facts showed detention distinct from molestation |
Key Cases Cited
- Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, [citation="216 Va. 349" ] (rules for viewing evidence on sufficiency review)
- Cable v. Commonwealth, [citation="243 Va. 236" ] (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for factfinder)
- Martin v. Commonwealth, [citation="4 Va. App. 438" ] (judgment will not be set aside unless plainly wrong)
- Muhammad v. Commonwealth, [citation="269 Va. 451" ] (no distinction in weight between direct and circumstantial evidence)
- Finney v. Commonwealth, [citation="277 Va. 83" ] (circumstantial evidence may suffice if it excludes reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
- Dowden v. Commonwealth, [citation="260 Va. 459" ] (same principle regarding circumstantial evidence)
- Hudson v. Commonwealth, [citation="265 Va. 505" ] (burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt explained)
- Scott v. Commonwealth, [citation="228 Va. 519" ] (abduction complete upon physical detention by force)
- Crawford v. Commonwealth, [citation="281 Va. 84" ] (abduction with intent to defile requires intent to sexually molest)
- Swisher v. Commonwealth, [citation="256 Va. 471" ] (equivalence of "sexually molest" and "defile")
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, [citation="221 Va. 872" ] (distinguishing incidental detention where restraint was only momentary and in furtherance of sexual advances)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, [citation="281 Va. 622" ] (reversing abduction conviction where actions were in pursuit of sexual gratification, not intent to deprive liberty)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, [citation="230 Va. 310" ] (incidental detention doctrine explained)
- Walker v. Commonwealth, [citation="272 Va. 511" ] (incidental detention doctrine applies only when multiple convictions arise from same factual episode)