Kenneth Charles Vigil v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0805161

Kenneth Charles Vigil (stepfather) was indicted for three counts of aggravated sexual battery against his stepdaughter M.R., alleging sexual contact when she was 10–12 years old (occurring between 2001–2003).
M.R. testified to three specific incidents in which Vigil put his fingers into her vagina; she delayed reporting until 2013, citing fear, embarrassment, and concern her mother would not believe her.
After M.R. told her boyfriend, she called her mother; friends (Hall, Rivera) later testified about phone reports in which the mother said Vigil had admitted and apologized (Rivera) and Vigil did not deny the accusation on a call (Hall).
Defense attacked M.R.’s credibility based on inconsistencies, delayed reporting, lack of contemporaneous journal entries, and testimony from family denying opportunities for abuse (e.g., computer location, frequency of being alone).
The circuit court (bench trial) convicted Vigil on three counts; he received a 45-year sentence (36 suspended). Vigil appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence (inherent incredibility) and admission of Hall’s hearsay as an adoptive admission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (inherent incredibility)	Commonwealth: M.R.’s testimony, if believed, alone can support convictions; trial court credited her.	Vigil: M.R.’s testimony was inconsistent, delayed, and thus inherently incredible; convictions unsupported.	Affirmed — testimony not inherently incredible; viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth a rational factfinder could convict.
Admission of Hall’s testimony (adoptive admission/hearsay)	Commonwealth: testimony admissible as adoptive party admission; alternatively harmless if erroneous.	Vigil: Hall’s account of the phone call was hearsay and inadmissible as an adoptive admission.	Assumed possible error but found any error harmless because Rivera’s similar (unobjected) testimony and M.R.’s testimony made Hall’s testimony cumulative.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Fisher v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 296 (victim’s testimony alone may sustain sexual-offense conviction because of clandestine nature)
Willis v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 560 (example of adult testimony found incredible as matter of law)
Juniper v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 362 (definition of "inherently incredible" testimony)
White v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 411 (harmless-error doctrine in Virginia statutory context)
Proffitt v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 626 (discussion of cumulative evidence for harmless-error analysis)
Lynch v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 204 (admissibility and adoptive admission principles)