Farhoumand v. Commonwealth, 764 S.E.2d 95

Victim S.F., a minor, accused his older cousin Samir Farhoumand of repeated sexual abuse (fondling and forced touching) over several years; four indictments charged exposing sexual/genital parts during distinct time windows.
At bench trial the court dismissed Indictment 1, convicted on Indictments 2–4; sentences were concurrent 10 years with 6 years suspended and long probation.
Trial court and the Court of Appeals relied on an unpublished decision (Mason) and held that "expose" includes tactile contact (forcing the child to touch the defendant's genitals).
Farhoumand appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court raising (1) whether "expose" under Va. Code § 18.2-370(A)(1) includes tactile contact or is limited to visual display and (2) sufficiency of evidence for each indictment under the correct definition.
The Supreme Court reviewed statutory text, legislative history, and precedent, concluding "expose" requires a visual display (seen or likely seen) and does not cover tactile-only contact; affirmed convictions for Indictments 2 and 3, reversed Indictment 4 for insufficient evidence of a distinct visual exposure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "expose" in Code § 18.2-370(A)(1) includes tactile contact or is limited to visual display	Commonwealth: exposure can include tactile acts if they make genitalia "known" to the child	Farhoumand: exposure requires visual display; tactile touching without visual display is not "exposure"	"Expose" requires a visual display (seen or reasonably likely to be seen); tactile-only contact is not covered
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove visual exposure for each indictment	Commonwealth: testimony and defendant's admissions show occasions where penis was exposed or could have been seen during the charged periods	Farhoumand: Commonwealth failed to prove visual exposure within the specific indictment timeframes; some allegations reflect only tactile contact	Convictions for Indictments 2 and 3 affirmed (sufficient evidence of visual exposure); Indictment 4 reversed (insufficient evidence of a distinct visual exposure)

David v. David, 287 Va. 231 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241 (common-law indecent exposure requires likelihood of being seen)
Wicks v. City of Charlottesville, 215 Va. 274 (indecent exposure requires exposure likely to be seen in a public place)
Siquina v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 694 (exposure requires reasonable probability the child might see the genitals)
Moses v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 357 (distinguishing "display" from "expose")
Clinebell v. Commonwealth, 235 Va. 319 (indictments with broad time windows may be sufficient in child-abuse cases)
Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (indictment must inform defendant of charges and permit double jeopardy defense)
Maldonado-Mejia v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 49 (standard for sufficiency review)