## Facts

- Charles M. Sanford’s 16-year-old biological daughter stayed with him in Alexandria, Virginia, for several days at her mother’s request.
- The victim had significant intellectual and developmental limitations, including an IQ in the 50s, academic functioning around a second-grade level, and adaptive deficits.
- Expert testimony described her cognitive functioning, especially regarding judgment and understanding cause-and-effect, as comparable to a young child.
- During the visit, Sanford engaged in cunnilingus with the victim while she was staying in his bedroom.
- After returning home, the victim disclosed the incident to her mother, who contacted police and obtained medical attention for the victim.
- The victim described the incident in child-like terms and displayed confusion about basic sexual concepts and consequences (e.g., pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases).
- Sanford did not dispute that the sexual act occurred; he contested only whether the victim was “mentally incapacitated” under the statute.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the victim was “mentally incapacitated” under Va. Code § 18.2-67.10(3), i.e., that her condition prevented her from understanding the nature or consequences of the sexual act at the time of the offense.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction for forcible sodomy under Va. Code § 18.2-67.1(A)(2).
- Applying a deferential sufficiency standard, the court held that a rational fact-finder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim’s condition met the statutory definition of “mental incapacity.”
- The court relied on the victim’s developmental limitations, her demonstrated inability to explain sexual acts and consequences, and expert testimony about her functional understanding.
- The court rejected Sanford’s argument that the victim’s ability to attend school, communicate, and perform routine tasks negated mental incapacity, because the statute focuses on understanding of the sexual act’s nature and consequences.
- The court declined to re-weigh expert testimony or substitute its view for the trial court’s credibility and factual determinations where supported by credible evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Va. Code § 18.2-67.1(A)(2), forcible sodomy includes sodomy accomplished through use of the victim’s mental incapacity.
- “Mental incapacity” under Va. Code § 18.2-67.10(3) requires proof that, at the time of the offense, the victim’s condition prevented understanding the nature or consequences of the sexual act.
- Mental incapacity is assessed functionally and contextually; a diagnosis or general limitations are relevant but not alone dispositive.
- On sufficiency review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and the conviction stands unless plainly wrong or without evidentiary support; appellate courts do not re-weigh evidence or credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Sanford’s forcible sodomy conviction because credible lay and expert evidence permitted a rational fact-finder to determine that the victim’s cognitive limitations prevented her from understanding the nature or consequences of the sexual act, satisfying Virginia’s statutory definition of mental incapacity.


Sanford v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 83, 683 S.E.2d 837 (Va. Ct. App. 2009)