Fred Leslie Fisher v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2001 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Elder and
Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
FRED LESLIE FISHER
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0278-00-4 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK
JUNE 19, 2001
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY
John R. Prosser, Judge
William A. Crane, Public Defender (Office of
the Public Defender, on briefs), for
appellant.
Richard B. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
Amicus Curiae: Virginians For Justice, Inc.
(Joseph Price, General Counsel; Stephen R.
Scarborough; Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin &
Kahn, PLLC; Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund, on brief), for appellant.
Fred Leslie Fisher (appellant) was indicted by the
Frederick County grand jury on (1) three counts of forcible
sodomy; (2) one count of object sexual penetration; and (3) one
count of rape for conduct that occurred on May 31, 1999. At
trial he was found guilty of three counts of carnal knowledge as
a lesser-included offense of the three counts of forcible
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
sodomy, not guilty of object sexual penetration, and guilty of
aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of rape
under Code § 18.2-61. 1 On appeal, he contends Code § 18.2-361 2
as applied in this case contravenes his rights under both the
Virginia and the United States Constitutions. We disagree and
affirm his convictions for carnal knowledge pursuant to Code
§ 18.2-361.
I. BACKGROUND
Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine
the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
the prevailing party below, granting to its evidence all
reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Juares v.
Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 154, 156, 493 S.E.2d 677, 678 (1997).
The credibility of witnesses and the weight assigned their
testimony are matters exclusively for the [fact finder]. Hills
v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 442, 456, 534 S.E.2d 337, 344
1
The Commonwealth conceded on brief and in oral argument
that aggravated sexual battery is not a lesser-included offense
of rape under Code § 18.2-61. On that conviction, this case is
reversed and remanded for new proceedings if the Commonwealth so
chooses.
2
Code § 18.2-361(A) provides in relevant part as follows:
If any person carnally knows in any manner
any brute animal, or carnally knows any male
or female person by the anus or by or with
the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such
carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty
of a Class 6 felony . . . .
- 2 -
(2000) (citing Lynn v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 336, 351, 499
S.E.2d 1, 8 (1998)).
So viewed, the evidence established that Mary Fansler
(Fansler) met appellant at work. She acknowledged a consensual
sexual relationship with him during the three days prior to May
31, 1999. On May 31, 1999, Fansler returned to appellant's
motel room where she drank beer and smoked pot until appellant's
friend, Jimmy Weatherholtz (Weatherholtz), arrived with a clear
liquid he claimed was LSD.
Fansler testified she refused the LSD but appellant forced
a small piece of cardboard containing the liquid into her mouth.
She testified "she didn't remember much after that" and was in
and out of consciousness throughout the night. Fansler said she
was clothed when appellant gave her the drug but was naked when
she regained consciousness. She remembered appellant performing
cunnilingus and anallingus on her and inserting a cigar case and
his fingers into her vagina, his fingers into her rectum and
forcing his penis into her mouth and vagina. Fansler testified
"Off and on that night . . . I remember having a lot of pain
. . . and just telling him to stop it." She consented to "none
of it" that day. Later, she left the motel, called her sister
and went to a women's shelter that directed her to the hospital
where she was examined by a "forensic nurse." She was treated,
and pictures of her injuries were taken. Appellant testified
- 3 -
all sexual activity on May 31, 1999 was consensual and that
Weatherholtz gave Fansler the LSD.
II.
Appellant contends the prohibition of "consensual"
heterosexual sodomy under Code § 18.2-361 abridges his right to
privacy and religion guaranteed by Article 1, Sections 1, 11 and
16 of the Virginia Constitution and the Fifth Amendment
protections of the United States Constitution. 3 "Before
considering these arguments, we note that generally, a litigant
may challenge the constitutionality of a law only as it applies
3
Article 1, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution provides
as follows:
That all men are by nature equally free
and independent and have certain inherent
rights, of which, when they enter into a
state of society, they cannot, by any
compact, deprive or divest their posterity;
namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty,
with the means of acquiring and possessing
property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety.
Article 1, Section 11 provides in pertinent part as follows:
That no person shall be deprived of his
life, liberty, or property without due
process of law . . . . [T]o be free from
any governmental discrimination upon the
basis of religious conviction . . . .
Article 1, Section 16 provides in pertinent part as follows:
[A]ll men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion . . . .
- 4 -
to him or her." Coleman v. City of Richmond, 5 Va. App. 459,
463, 364 S.E.2d 239, 241-42 (1988) (citing Grosso v.
Commonwealth, 177 Va. 830, 839, 13 S.E.2d 285, 288 (1941)).
"That the statute may apply unconstitutionally to another is
irrelevant. One cannot raise third party rights." Id. at 463,
364 S.E.2d at 242.
In the recently decided case of Paris v. Commonwealth, 35
Va. App. 377, 545 S.E.2d 577 (2001), we addressed the scope of
Article 1, Section 1 protections in the context of a challenge
to Code § 18.2-361. In that case we held that neither the
guaranties of Article 1, Section 1 or Section 11 of the Virginia
Constitution nor the United States Constitution extend the right
to privacy or the right to "happiness" to cover sodomy between
an uncle and his nephew. See also Santillo v. Commonwealth, 30
Va. App. 470, 517 S.E.2d 733 (1999) (no constitutional violation
when statute was applied to godfather and minor victim).
In the instant case, appellant seeks to extend the right to
privacy and freedom of religion to cover an individual who
engages in consensual heterosexual sodomy. However, we do not
reach these issues because the facts show appellant's actions
did not involve sexual relations between two consenting adults.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
evidence established Fansler did not consent to the acts of
sodomy which form the basis of the charges in this case.
Specifically, Fansler testified that appellant forced LSD in her
- 5 -
mouth and then performed various sexual acts on her without her
permission. The trial court found that the injuries depicted in
the photographs admitted into evidence were sufficient to rise
to the level of the "severe injury" element of aggravated sexual
battery. 4
Brenda Adams (Adams), the sexual assault nurse examiner,
described Fansler's injuries as follows:
She complained of whole body discomfort.
She complained of pain over the areas of her
bruising. She complained of pain in her
genital area, in her anus.
* * * * * * *
All of the bruising that she had from her
head down to her legs was all consistent
with color and consistent with time frame.
* * * * * * *
There were puncture wounds on her breasts.
* * * * * * *
[These injuries were] consistent with blunt force
penetrating trauma.
Under these circumstances, the evidence supports the trial
judge's finding that the victim did not consent to appellant's
actions and thus, do not reach the level of constitutional
protection. Like Santillo and Paris, the appellant has failed
4
While we reverse and remand the rape charge, the facts
adduced therein are part of the continuing course of events of
that day.
- 6 -
to establish that Code § 18.2-361, as applied to him, is
unconstitutional.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm appellant's
convictions under Code § 18.2-361 and reverse and remand
appellant's conviction for aggravated sexual battery as a
lesser-included offense of rape pursuant to Code § 18.2-61.
Affirmed in part, and
reversed and remanded in
part.
- 7 -