Manneh Vay v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 236
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim L.S., 17, attended a crowded party in Charlottesville where appellant Manneh Vay danced with her, became forceful, removed his penis, and forced her to touch him.
- Appellant pushed L.S. through a crowd about 40 feet into a bathroom, locked the door, ripped off her clothing, pinned her, and committed vaginal and oral penetration despite her resistance.
- L.S. reported the assault immediately; police and a sexual assault nurse/clinician observed signs of distress and injury.
- Vay was tried by jury and convicted of rape (Code § 18.2-61), sodomy (Code § 18.2-67.1), and abduction with intent to defile (Code § 18.2-48). The jury recommended 20, 5, and 5 years respectively; the court ordered the two shorter terms concurrent with the 20-year term.
- On appeal Vay challenged (1) denial of his motion to strike the abduction count, (2) refusal to give an “incidental detention” jury instruction, (3) absence of a voir dire colloquy establishing waiver of his right to testify, (4) denial of a strike-for-cause of a juror with sexual assault-related academic work, and (5) the court’s response to jury questions about concurrent sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for abduction with intent to defile | Force/asportation insufficient; detention was merely incidental to rape/sodomy | Testimony showed forced 40-foot asportation, locking door, and private isolation—sufficient for separate abduction offense | Affirmed: enough evidence for jury to find separate abduction |
| Refusal to give incidental-detention jury instruction | Jury should decide whether detention was incidental; requested instruction outlined Hoyt factors | Law is that whether detention is incidental is a question of law for the court, not a jury; instruction inappropriate | Affirmed: trial court properly refused instruction |
| Failure to conduct voir dire colloquy to confirm waiver of right to testify | Court erred by not directly questioning defendant to ensure an intelligent waiver | Defendant was informed twice in court; decision not to testify appears tactical; any complaint is ineffective-assistance claim not cognizable on direct appeal | Affirmed: no requirement for colloquy; record shows awareness; any counsel claim must be raised via collateral review |
| Refusal to strike juror for cause (academic work on sexual assault) | Juror’s long experience biased her against male defendant; should be per se disqualified | Juror said unequivocally she could be impartial; trial court credited her; no manifest error | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion refusing strike for cause |
| Court’s response to jury questions about concurrent sentences | Court’s answer that imposing concurrent sentences isn’t within jury province misstates law and prejudiced appellant | Appellant agreed with the response at trial and failed to object; approbate-reprobate and Rule 5A:18 bar review | Affirmed: issue waived and barred by approbate/reprobate doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Smallwood v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 625 (appellate review standard)
- Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492 (credibility rules on review)
- Linnon v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 92 (motion to strike standard)
- Hoyt v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 489 (incidental-detention analysis; held question of law)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 310 (restraint intrinsic to other crimes doctrine)
- Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 (Supreme Court: incidental-detention is question of law for the court)
- Wiggins v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 173 (abduction/asportation precedents)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 711 (slight asportation can support abduction)
- Coram v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 623 (moving victim out of public view increases danger)
- Massey v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 108 (asportation supporting independent abduction conviction)