## Facts

- Roger Talley Clifton and the victim were next-door neighbors.
- On the morning of January 6, 1994, the victim was home with her three sleeping children; her husband had left for work.
- The victim heard a “peck” at the door, saw Clifton outside gesturing, and motioned for him to wait; when she entered the front room, Clifton was already inside the home.
- The victim testified Clifton grabbed her, rubbed her breasts, twisted her arm behind her back, dragged her to a couch, pulled down her underwear, and announced his intent to have intercourse.
- The victim testified she told him “no” and “stop,” began crying, and submitted because she feared her children would wake up and see what was happening.
- Clifton admitted intercourse occurred but claimed it was consensual.
- The case turned primarily on conflicting testimony about consent; there was no physical or other corroborating evidence described.
- The jury was instructed it could not convict Clifton of rape if it found the victim consented; the jury convicted him of rape and breaking and entering with intent to commit rape.

## Issues

1. Whether the victim’s testimony, including her explanation for not physically resisting, was sufficient to support convictions for rape and breaking and entering with intent to commit rape.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a requested instruction requiring the Commonwealth to prove Clifton knew, or reasonably should have known, that the victim did not consent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed both convictions.
- The evidence was sufficient because the victim’s testimony described nonconsensual intercourse accomplished by force or intimidation and was not inherently incredible; credibility and weight were for the jury.
- The trial court properly refused the proposed “perception of consent” instruction; the standard instructions on consent, force/intimidation, and the Commonwealth’s burden were adequate on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of sufficiency requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and sustaining the verdict unless plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.
- A rape conviction may rest on the credible testimony of the victim; corroboration is not required if the testimony is not incredible as a matter of law.
- Lack of physical resistance does not preclude a rape finding when the factfinder credits an explanation showing submission due to force, threat, or intimidation.
- Credibility determinations and the weight of testimony are for the jury and are not reweighed on appeal absent testimony that is inherently incredible.
- A trial court need not give a separate mistake-of-fact or “perception of consent” instruction where the jury is adequately instructed that it must acquit if it finds consent and must find the required elements of force or intimidation and nonconsent.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Clifton’s convictions, holding that the victim’s account was sufficient despite her lack of physical resistance and that the jury was properly instructed on consent and the elements of rape without an additional instruction requiring proof that Clifton knew or should have known of the victim’s nonconsent.


Clifton v. Commonwealth, 468 S.E.2d 155 (Va. Ct. App. 1996)