Paul Travis Edwards v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2023 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Huff, Athey and White
Argued at Salem, Virginia
PAUL TRAVIS EDWARDS
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0160-22-3 JUDGE CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR.
JANUARY 17, 2023
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRY COUNTY
David V. Williams, Judge
Daniel P. Gaylon, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
John W. Beamer, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Paul Travis Edwards (“Edwards”) appeals an order convicting him of ten counts of
aggravated sexual battery by a parent and two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery, after a bench
trial in the Circuit Court of Henry County (“trial court”). Edwards argues the evidence failed to
establish the corpus delicti of the ten aggravated sexual battery offenses because it did not
corroborate his confession. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
misdemeanor sexual battery convictions. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
Edwards and his former wife Amy Thomas (“Thomas”) adopted K.E. and her younger
brother when K.E. was six years old. When Edwards and Thomas divorced in 2015, K.E., who was
about to start high school, continued to live with Edwards in the former family home. At trial, K.E.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
testified that a “few weeks” after the divorce, Edwards came into her bedroom one night, got into
her bed, and “touch[ed]” and “kiss[ed]” her breasts and vagina. K.E. also testified that Edwards
touched her “all over [her] body and stuff and kind of [did] things to [her] that [she] didn’t like.”
On another occasion, after praying together before bedtime, she testified that Edwards came into her
bedroom, got into bed, and kissed and touched her as she had “described earlier.”
K.E. testified that Edwards abused her in this same manner “so many times” that she could
not “give an exact number.” Nevertheless, she asserted that it happened at least “ten” or “fifteen”
times before she turned eighteen, and it “feels like” it happened “more than twenty times.” The
incidents always occurred in her bedroom at night; she was always awake, but “didn’t say anything
every time that it happened.” Sometime in 2015 or 2016, K.E. realized that what Edwards was
doing “wasn’t right,” but she “didn’t know how to express that to anybody.”
K.E. testified that around December 9, 2019, when she was eighteen years old, Edwards
entered her bedroom, got into her bed, touched her breasts and her vagina over her clothes, and tried
to “bring [her] close to him.” Hoping Edwards would stop, K.E. moved closer to the wall beside
her bed to get away but she did not object because she “was afraid.” After “probably five or ten
minutes,” she testified that Edwards left the room and she immediately sent a text message to her
boyfriend, Mark Belton, reporting the abuse because she was “scared” and “didn’t know what else
to do.”
The next day, Belton and K.E. told their pastor, Susan Adkins, about the abuse, and the three
of them confronted Edwards at Adkins’s home concerning the abuse. Edwards “confirmed” during
the confrontation that K.E.’s allegations were true but emphasized that “it was just touching.”
Edwards stated that he “was aware that what he had done was wrong” and claimed that he “was
really, really sorry.” He also stated that he would “get counseling” and “work on being a better
person.” K.E. stayed at Belton’s house for about a week before returning home, but she did not
-2-
report the incident to police because she wanted to give Edwards a “chance” to go through
counseling.
K.E. further testified that one evening around Valentine’s Day in 2020, K.E., her brother,
and Edwards were sitting on their couch at home watching a movie. About ten or fifteen minutes
after K.E.’s brother went to bed, K.E. “laid down” on the couch beside Edwards because she was
drowsy but “didn’t feel like getting up.” Her eyes were partly closed, and she was trying to go to
sleep when Edwards began touching her breasts and vagina and asked her if it was “okay.” She
testified that she responded, “no, I [don’t] like this,” but was “scared and confused” because she
knew he had been going to counseling. Although she did not immediately “push[] him away,”
“after a few minutes,” she “retreated to a spare bedroom.” Edwards then opened the spare bedroom
door, apologized, and left. K.E. reported the incident to her boyfriend Belton the next day, and
together they went to the Henry County Sheriff’s Office to report the abuse to Lieutenant Mitchell
Turner (“Lieutenant Turner”).
In an interview with Lieutenant Turner, Edwards admitted that after separating from
Thomas in 2015, he touched K.E.’s vagina “on top of her clothes” while they were at home when
she was fifteen years old. He stated K.E. did not say anything but “allowed it.” He further admitted
that he touched her “breasts,” “vagina,” or “both” “approximately 10 times before she turned 18.”
Each incident was at the family home, and K.E. was always awake. Edwards also had kissed K.E.’s
breasts.
Edwards also admitted that in December 2019, he “went into [K.E.’s] room with the
intention of touching her” and “got in the bed with her.” Nevertheless, he claimed that he left
without touching her because “she didn’t want [him] to.” He recounted meeting with K.E., Belton,
and Adkins a few days later, apologizing, and agreeing to go to counseling.
-3-
Edwards also admitted to Lieutenant Turner that after two counseling sessions, he was
“doing better until” the evening he and K.E. were on the couch watching a movie. Edwards
admitted “touch[ing] her” on the couch but claimed that she said it was “ok.” He further claimed
that after he “touched her breasts under her shirt,” she “took [his] hand and placed it on her vagina
on the outside of her pants,” before K.E. “pulled her shirt down and got up.” Edwards claimed that
K.E. “was always in control” and he “never did anything she didn’t allow.” He also asserted that,
during the “10 times” when she was younger than eighteen, she would occasionally “get in bed
with” him and “move [his] hand down there.” Other times, he went into her room.
At trial, Thomas testified for the defense that after Edwards was arrested, K.E. told her that
the two incidents in 2019 and 2020 were the only two times Edwards had done anything to her.
Thomas stated that as time passed, she noticed that K.E. was “carrying” “a burden.” She testified
that K.E. subsequently told her that Edwards’s confession to incidents that happened before she
turned eighteen were true, that she “felt ashamed” and “scared,” and that she “felt like” “she
allowed” Edwards to touch her. She stated that K.E. felt that she was “being dishonest” because she
did not report the other incidents right away and because she had said she was not awake during the
incidents in 2019 and 2020.
After the close of evidence and closing argument, the trial court found that K.E.’s testimony
about the frequency of the incidents “comport[ed] with the frequency” indicated in Edwards’s
confession. The trial court also found that Edwards had also confessed twice—first to Pastor
Adkins and then to Lieutenant Turner. Accordingly, the trial court convicted Edwards of ten counts
of aggravated sexual battery by a parent and two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery.1 Edwards
timely appealed the convictions.
1
After Edwards moved to strike the evidence at the close of the Commonwealth’s
case-in-chief, the trial court reduced the two charges of aggravated sexual battery arising from the
two incidents when K.E. was eighteen to sexual battery.
-4-
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is
presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support
it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting
Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does not ask itself
whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id.(alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204, 228 (2018)). “Rather, the
relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting
Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193 (2009)). “If there is evidentiary support for the
conviction, ‘the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion
might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial.’” McGowan, 72
Va. App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018)).
B. The Commonwealth did present corroborative evidence sufficient to establish the corpus
delicti.
Edwards contends that the evidence at trial failed to establish the corpus delicti of the ten
aggravated sexual battery offenses because the evidence did not corroborate his confession. He
stresses that K.E. “was not sure” how many incidents happened before she was eighteen, could only
“detail two” of those incidents, and was not “sure exactly how old she was.” Given that “lack of
certainty,” Edwards argues that the evidence demonstrated only that Edwards had the opportunity to
commit the crimes and failed to “establish the corpus delicti” of each of the ten offenses. We
disagree.
“The corpus delicti rule requires the Commonwealth to introduce evidence independent of
an extrajudicial confession to prove that the confessed crime actually occurred—that is, to prove the
-5-
corpus delicti.” Park v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 635, 655 (2022) (quoting Allen v.
Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68, 72 (2014)). “Only ‘slight corroboration of [a] confession is required
to establish corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Allen,
287 Va. at 74). The “slight corroboration need not be ‘of all the contents of the confession, or even
all the elements of the crime.’” Allen, 287 Va. at 74 (quoting Watkins v. Commonwealth, 238 Va.
341, 348 (1989)). Indeed, “[t]he confession is itself competent evidence tending to prove the corpus
delicti, and all that is required of the Commonwealth in such a case is to present evidence of such
circumstances as will, when taken in connection with the confession, establish the corpus delicti
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Watkins, 238 Va. at 349. An eyewitness’s testimony “detailing the
occurrence of the illegal act can help satisfy the slight corroboration requirement.” Allen, 287 Va. at
74. “The question whether there exists evidence in corroboration of the confession is . . . a question
for the trier of fact.” Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 421, 425 (1988).
Here, Edwards confessed that he touched K.E.’s breasts, vagina, or both approximately ten
occasions before she turned eighteen and that the first time happened shortly after his then-wife left
the family home in 2015. K.E.’s testimony largely tracked that confession. She testified that “a few
weeks” after Thomas left the family home in 2015, Edwards came into her bedroom, got into her
bed, and “touch[ed]” and “kiss[ed]” her breasts and vagina. Notably, K.E. further confirmed that
the abuse happened on at least “ten” or “fifteen” occasions, or perhaps “more than twenty times.”
Edwards twice confessed that K.E. was awake and never said anything during the incidents. K.E.’s
testimony confirmed that she was always awake and “didn’t say anything every time that it
happened.” Edwards confessed that the incidents always happened at the family home. K.E.
testified that the incidents always occurred in her bedroom at night.
Edward’s reliance on Allen is misplaced. There, the only substantive evidence apart from
the defendant’s confession to sexually abusing his grandson came from his daughter’s testimony
-6-
that he “had various opportunities to be alone with his grandson.” Allen, 287 Va. at 75. Among
those opportunities were times in which Allen fell asleep with or wrestled with his grandson—
activities which were “just as consistent with non-commission of aggravated sexual battery as
with its commission.” Id. at 76. Here, by contrast, K.E. testified that Edwards committed the
acts of sexual abuse to which he had confessed, not merely that he had opportunity to perpetrate
them. Her testimony, independent of his confession, established that Edwards touched and
kissed her breasts and vagina on at least ten, and perhaps more than twenty, occasions. These
acts to which K.E. testified were consistent only with the commission of aggravated sexual battery.
See Code §§ 18.2-67.3(A)(3), -67.10 (defining aggravated sexual battery by a parent as an act in
which, with “the intent to sexually molest, arouse, or gratify any person,” the parent “intentionally
touches the” child’s “intimate parts”—among them, the “genitalia” and breast—or “material
directly covering such intimate parts”).
In sum, the record demonstrates that K.E.’s testimony substantially corroborated Edwards’s
confession to each of the ten counts of aggravated sexual battery. K.E.’s testimony was not
impeached, and her credibility is not challenged on appeal. Thus, the Commonwealth’s evidence
proved the corpus delicti of each of the aggravated sexual battery offenses. Watkins, 238 Va. at
349.
C. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of misdemeanor sexual battery.
Edwards contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his two convictions for
misdemeanor sexual battery because it failed to prove that he abused K.E. against her will by force,
threat, intimidation, or ruse in the 2019 and 2020 incidents. He argues that K.E. was not asleep
during either incident and he did “not restrain her movement in the bed or on the couch.” He further
argues that he made no threats and did not try “to trick the victim into a vulnerable position so that
he could touch her.” Finally, he contends that K.E., a “college-age[d] adult,” was “not under the
-7-
psychological pressure to show that her will was overborne” during either incident. Thus, he
contends, the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We disagree.
“An accused is guilty of sexual battery if he sexually abuses, as defined in § 18.2-67.10, . . .
the complaining witness against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat, intimidation,
or ruse.” Code § 18.2-67.4(A). Sexual abuse is “an act committed with the intent to sexually
molest, arouse, or gratify any person, where . . . [t]he accused intentionally touches the complaining
witness’s intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts.” Code § 18.2-67.10.
Intimate parts are “the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, or buttocks of any person.” Id.
Intimidation “may occur without threats” because it involves “putting a victim in fear of
bodily harm by exercising such domination and control of her as to overcome her mind and
overbear her will. Intimidation may be caused by the imposition of psychological pressure on one
who, under the circumstances, is vulnerable and susceptible to such pressure.” Bondi v.
Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 79, 90 (2019) (quoting Sutton v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 654, 663
(1985)). In determining whether the act was accomplished through intimidation, the factfinder
“may consider ‘the victim’s age, . . . the familial relationship between the defendant and victim, and
the vulnerable position of the victim.’” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Bower, 264 Va. 41, 46
(2002)).
Consistent with those principles, we have held that a defendant’s “paternal bond” with his
victim is a “highly relevant circumstance” when considering whether that sexual abuse was
accomplished through intimidation. Clark v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 406, 410-11 (1999). In
Clark, the defendant began sexually abusing his daughter when she was very young and did it “so
often and for so long, she did not realize his conduct was improper until she learned about sexual
abuse in a sex education class at school.” Id. at 410. Even then, the victim “allowed [the abuse] to
continue because she was unable to confront her father.” Id. In affirming the defendant’s
-8-
conviction for aggravated sexual battery, we rejected his argument that “the paternal relationship
[was] insufficient to prove intimidation,” holding that the “paternal bond, along with the victim’s
age and relative isolation from others, impeded her ability to resist her father.” Id. at 410-11. The
victim was “vulnerable and susceptible to pressure from her father,” which supported “the finding
that her will was overcome.” Id. at 411.
The record in this case similarly demonstrates a pattern of sexual abuse that began when
K.E. was young. Edwards and Thomas adopted K.E. when she was six years old, and she continued
to live with Edwards in the former family home after he divorced Thomas in 2015. Shortly after the
divorce, Edwards began repeatedly abusing K.E. by touching and kissing her breasts and vagina.
The trial court could reasonably infer that this frequent abuse, which began while K.E. was young
and occurred potentially “more than twenty” times, placed an immense amount of psychological
and emotional pressure on her. See id. at 410 (holding that the defendant’s frequent abuse of the
victim, beginning “when she was very young,” contributed to “circumstances of emotional
domination”).
Then, during the 2019 incident shortly after K.E. became an adult, Edwards got into her bed,
touched her breasts and vagina, and tried to “bring [her] close to him.” K.E. testified that she was
“scared” and did not know what to do. She moved closer to the wall beside her bed, trying to get
away from Edwards and hoping he would stop, but did not say anything because she “was afraid.”
Similarly, K.E. testified that she was “scared and confused” when Edwards began touching her
breasts and vagina on the couch during the 2020 incident. When Edwards asked if it was “okay,”
K.E. said “no” but did not immediately stop him because she was afraid.
Considering K.E.’s testimony against the backdrop of Edwards’s frequent and repeated
sexual abuse of her as a child, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that both the 2019 and
2020 offenses were accomplished against her will. Indeed, K.E.’s testimony “described
-9-
circumstances of emotional domination sufficient to constitute intimidation.” Id. Thus, the
Commonwealth’s evidence was competent, not inherently incredible, and sufficient to sustain
Edwards’s convictions.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 10 -