Jeffrey Dean Bondi v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 824 S.E.2d 512

In October 2001, then-youth M.V. (a shy, modest teenager) babysat for Jeffrey Bondi, a youth minister and mentor she regarded as a father figure; while at his home he fondled her, digitally penetrated her vagina, and later prevented her from leaving by grabbing her arm and pulling her back onto the sofa.
M.V. testified she was “completely frozen,” in shock and pain, and remained fearful and traumatized after the incident; she disclosed limited details immediately after but revealed the penetration to church contacts in 2010 and reported the crime to police, leading to Bondi’s 2017 indictment and bench trial.
The trial court convicted Bondi of object sexual penetration (Va. Code § 18.2-67.2(A)(2)) and sentenced him to 35 years with 25 suspended; Bondi moved post‑sentencing to set aside the verdict based on purportedly after-discovered evidence arising from M.V.’s 2016 EMDR therapy.
Bondi argued the Commonwealth failed to prove the act was by force, threat, or intimidation and that M.V.’s specifics (penetration) were recovered during EMDR, undermining her credibility and warranting a new trial.
The trial court denied the new‑trial motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence was sufficient to prove force and intimidation and that EMDR evidence was immaterial because M.V. had disclosed penetration earlier (2010).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether penetration was accomplished by force, threat, or intimidation	Commonwealth: M.V. was forcibly and intimi‑dated — she was frozen, in pain, grabbed when she tried to leave, and had a mentor–victim relationship	Bondi: No proof of force beyond that inherent in the act; no evidence he restrained her	Affirmed: evidence supported both force (grabbing, overcoming will, pain) and intimidation (mentor relationship, psychological domination)
Motion for new trial based on after‑discovered evidence (EMDR therapy)	Bondi: M.V.’s detailed recollection of penetration emerged only after 2016 EMDR; this new evidence would impeach her credibility and warrant expert attack on EMDR/repressed memories	Commonwealth: M.V. disclosed penetration in 2010 (before EMDR); EMDR did not create the memory; evidence immaterial	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion — EMDR evidence immaterial because prior disclosures showed memory existed before therapy

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review) (establishes whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Wactor v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 375 (2002) (factors for force/intimidation in object sexual penetration cases)
Sutton v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 654 (1985) (definition of intimidation as psychological domination overcoming victim’s will)
Commonwealth v. Bower, 264 Va. 41 (2002) (finding intimidation where parental relationship and fear supported conviction for animate object penetration)
Odum v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 123 (1983) (four‑part test for new trial based on after‑discovered evidence)