Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and
Millette, JJ., and Lacy, S.J.
CHARLES TIMOTHY SADLER
v. Record No. 080222 OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE
ELIZABETH B. LACY
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA October 31, 2008
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
In this appeal, Charles Timothy Sadler asks this Court to
reverse his conviction for taking indecent liberties with a
minor with whom he maintained a custodial or supervisory
relationship, Code § 18.2-370.1, because he was not engaged in
the activity that gave rise to the custodial or supervisory
relationship at the time of the incident. For the reasons
stated below, we will affirm the conviction.
FACTS
We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, the prevailing party below. Porter v.
Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 215-16, 661 S.E.2d 415, 419 (2008).
The victim, a 17 year old female, was a member of a
traveling softball team coached by Sadler. The team was not
sponsored by a school but was organized to play a sporadic
schedule of tournaments around the country. On February 4,
2006, Sadler and the victim attended a fundraising program for
the traveling softball team. Ten days later, on February 14,
2006, Sadler went to the victim’s residence knowing she was
alone. He gave the victim cards and presents for her, her
sister, and her mother. Sadler then kissed the victim and
rubbed the back of her legs and buttocks. While Sadler was at
the victim’s home, he showed her the new uniforms for the
traveling softball team that he had in his car. Three days
after this incident Sadler and the victim traveled with the
team to Georgia for a tournament.
Following a bench trial, Sadler was convicted of a
violation of Code § 18.2-370.1 and sentenced to a two-year
term of imprisonment. ∗ The trial court suspended all but 30
days of his incarceration. The Court of Appeals of Virginia
affirmed the conviction. Sadler v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App.
17, 26, 654 S.E.2d 313, 317 (2007). Sadler timely filed a
∗
Code § 18.2-370.1 states in relevant part:
(A) Any person 18 years of age or older who, except as
provided in § 18.2-370, maintains a custodial or
supervisory relationship over a child under the age of 18
and is not legally married to such child and such child
is not emancipated who, with lascivious intent, knowingly
and intentionally (i) proposes that any such child feel
or fondle the sexual or genital parts of such person or
that such person feel or handle the sexual or genital
parts of the child; or (ii) proposes to such child the
performance of an act of sexual intercourse or any act
constituting an offense under § 18.2-361; or (iii)
exposes his or her sexual or genital parts to such child;
or (iv) proposes that any such child expose his or her
sexual or genital parts to such person; or (v) proposes
to the child that the child engage in sexual intercourse,
sodomy or fondling of sexual or genital parts with
another person; or (vi) sexually abuses the child as
2
petition for appeal in this Court, and we granted the
petition.
DISCUSSION
Code § 18.2-370.1 applies to any adult “who . . .
maintains a custodial or supervisory relationship” with a
minor and engages in certain conduct with the minor. Sadler
asserts that the requirement of a custodial or supervisory
relationship was not met in this case because he was not
acting as her coach or with her for any team-related reason at
the time of the offensive conduct. Therefore, Sadler
concludes that his actions did not fall within the purview of
the statute. We disagree.
Sadler’s interpretation of Code § 18.2-370.1 imposes a
limitation on the plain meaning of the words used in the
statute. In enacting this provision, the General Assembly
provided that the only prerequisite for its application is
that the offender “maintains a custodial or supervisory
relationship” at the time of the offense. Sadler’s
construction of the section limits this prerequisite to
instances in which the parties are engaged in activities
related to that relationship at the time the offensive
conduct occurs. The language of the statute does not support
defined in § 18.2-67.10(6), shall be guilty of a Class 6
felony.
3
such a limitation and it is well established that in
construing penal statutes the Court “ ‘must not add to the
words of the statute, nor ignore its actual words, and must
strictly construe the statute and limit its application to
cases falling clearly within its scope.’ ” Phelps v.
Commonwealth, 275 Va. 139, 142, 654 S.E.2d 926, 927 (2008)
(quoting Robinson v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 45, 51, 645 S.E.2d
470, 473 (2007)).
Furthermore, Sadler’s construction of the statute is
inconsistent with the purpose of the statute which is to
protect minors from adults who might exploit certain types of
relationships. Such harmful exploitation is not limited to
incidents occurring during the activity upon which the
relationship is based. For example, a coach of a sports team
might invite a team member to the coach’s home to mow the
grass and, during that time, engage in conduct proscribed by
Code § 18.2-370.1. Mowing the lawn is not associated with the
sports activity, nevertheless, the team member may still feel
compelled to obey the coach, thus allowing the coach to
exploit the relationship.
For these reasons, we reject Sadler’s assertion that a
custodial or supervisory relationship is maintained for
purposes of Code § 18.2-370.1 only when the objectionable acts
are undertaken in the course of performing activities giving
4
rise to that relationship. Whether such a relationship exists
at the time of the offending conduct is a matter of fact to be
determined on a case by case basis.
The evidence in this case established that at the time of
the incident the victim was a member of a traveling softball
team coached by Sadler, that ten days prior to the incident
Sadler and the victim attended a team fundraiser, on the day
of the incident Sadler showed the victim the new uniforms for
the team, and three days after the incident Sadler and the
victim traveled with the team to participate in a tournament.
Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding
that at the time of the incident, Sadler maintained a
custodial or supervisory relationship with the victim as
required by Code § 18.2-370.1. Accordingly, we will affirm
the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
5