Moussa Moise Haba v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 858 S.E.2d 436

Haba met the victim online; they entered a short, controlling relationship in which he threatened to release alleged "videos" of her to Saudi authorities.
On August 6, 2017, while in the victim’s studio apartment (bedroom area), Haba used his smartphone to record the victim naked for about four minutes.
At the time of recording the victim held a blanket over her body, pleaded with Haba to stop, and resisted; Haba pulled the blanket away and continued recording.
Police recovered the video from Haba’s phone; a jury acquitted him of abduction but convicted him under Va. Code § 18.2-386.1(A)(i) for unlawfully creating an image.
On appeal Haba argued the evidence was insufficient because the victim lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy (she knew he was present, had undressed earlier, and the recording was not secret).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the jury reasonably could find a privacy expectation at the time of recording.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence proved the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy when Haba recorded her in her bedroom	Commonwealth: Yes — bedroom is a statutorily protected location; victim shielded herself with a blanket, pleaded no, and did not consent	Haba: No — he was present, they were in a relationship, she had undressed earlier, and the recording wasn’t surreptitious	Held: Affirmed — jury could find a reasonable expectation of privacy based on location, shielding with a blanket, expressed nonconsent, and surrounding circumstances

Wilson v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 599 (2009) ("reasonable expectation of privacy" applies to clause (i); focus on victim’s physical location)
McGinnis v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 489 (2018) (requisite intent/conditions must exist at the time of the offense’s gravamen)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (recognizes special privacy interest in the home)
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) (privacy of the home protects private possession/activities)
Barnes v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 495 (2013) (definition of "public place" for indecent exposure—foreseeability of nonconsenting witnesses—distinguished)
Ohin v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 194 (2005) (use of common experience in statutory interpretation; locker-room context)
Spratley v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 187 (2019) (statutory construction forbids interpretations rendering parts redundant)
Lambert v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 510 (2020) (standard of appellate review: view evidence in light most favorable to the Commonwealth)