Richard Turner Moter v. Commonwealth of Virginia
737 S.E.2d 538
Va. Ct. App.2013Background
- Moter was convicted of three counts of computer harassment under Code § 18.2-152.7:1 and had his suspended sentence for a prior stalking conviction revoked.
- The victim, C.V., testified Moter repeatedly harassed her over years, including stalking convictions and threats, with prior acts of scratching her car and placing vulgar messages.
- In 2010, Moter sent more than forty computer messages to C.V. via Facebook, containing obscene sexual references, threats, and attempts to coerce an apology.
- At trial, the court found the emails in November 2010 were obscene and threatening, convicting Moter under the statute and revoking the prior suspended sentence.
- On appeal, the court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and assesses whether a reasonable factfinder could find obscenity or threats under the statute given the context.
- The court concluded that, considering Moter’s history and the content and context of the messages, a rational factfinder could conclude the communications violated Code § 18.2-152.7:1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moter's messages violated Code § 18.2-152.7:1 | Moter contends the messages were not obscene or threats. | Messages were vulgar but not obscene or improper under Barson. | Yes, messages satisfied the statute. |
| Interpretation of Code § 18.2-152.7:1 elements | Any message that is obscene, suggests obscene content, or threatens illegal acts can violate the statute. | Barson narrows obscenity; vulgarity alone does not violate the statute; need obscenity per Miller framework or threats. | The third disjunctive element (threats of illegal or immoral acts) and the context support violation; Barson limitations do not foreclose this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barson v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 67 (2012) (limits obscenity to truly obscene communications under Miller framework; vulgarity alone not enough)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (definition of obscenity under First Amendment framework)
- Rives v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 1 (2012) (distinguishes obscenity/immoral act threats under the harassment statute)
- Allman v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 104 (2004) (used to discuss obscenity considerations; later distinguished in Barson)