Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Kinser, Lemons, and
Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
JAIME SALVADOR MOLINA
v. Record No. 060267 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS
November 3, 2006
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
In this appeal, we consider two issues: (1) whether the
trial court erred in granting an instruction including use of
the victim's mental incapacity in a rape case; and (2) whether
there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of
forcible sodomy.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
A. Prior Proceedings
On October 24, 2003, a jury in the Circuit Court of
Fairfax County found Jaime Salvador Molina (“Molina”) guilty
of rape and forcible sodomy of Stephanie A. Moroffko
(“Moroffko”). Molina was sentenced to ten years imprisonment
on each conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
convictions. Molina v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 338, 624
S.E.2d 83 (2006). We granted Molina's petition for appeal on
four assignments of error: (1) The Circuit Court erred in
granting Instruction 14. (2) The Court of Appeals erred in
holding that there was evidence to support an instruction
(Instruction 14) that the rape was committed through the use
of mental incapacity of the complaining witness. (3) The
Court of Appeals erred in holding that granting Instruction 14
was harmless error. (4) The Court of Appeals erred in holding
that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of
forcible sodomy.
B. Facts
During the morning on September 28, 2002, Moroffko left
her house and walked to a nearby convenience store. After
buying some milk and wine and leaving the store, she stopped
and sat on a brick wall near the store and began drinking the
wine. Molina approached Moroffko, sat down next to her and
they talked. Moroffko and Molina then began kissing. While
sitting with Molina on the brick wall, Moroffko's head was
either “hit by something hard” on the back of her head or she
fell and “hit against something.”
Later that morning, a police officer noticed Molina
standing behind a bush at the rear of the convenience store
about 130 or 140 feet from the place on the wall where
Moroffko had been sitting. The officer also found Jose
Membrano lying on the ground. Within 20 seconds of the
arrival of the police, Molina looked in the direction of the
officer, then began to walk away. Molina's face was flushed,
his eyes were somewhat "reddish," and the officer smelled
alcohol on his person.
2
The officer looked behind the bush and saw Moroffko
unconscious and partially naked lying near a dumpster behind
the convenience store. The officer attempted to awaken
Moroffko and, thereafter, called the rescue squad when she was
non-responsive. The emergency medical technician who arrived
at the scene noticed some puffiness in Moroffko's face and
foam around her mouth, which the technician stated is
indicative of a seizure.
The police arrested Molina for being drunk in public.
Upon interrogation, Molina told the police that after engaging
in consensual vaginal sex with Moroffko some distance from the
brick wall, Molina left Moroffko who stayed behind to sleep.
According to Molina, he then spoke to some friends in the
parking lot, bought some lunch, and came back to the area
behind the store. According to Molina, when he returned, Jose
Membrano was on top of Moroffko. Moroffko was screaming and
had "started to foam at the mouth." Police arrived shortly
thereafter.
Upon arrival at the hospital, Moroffko was still non-
responsive. She awoke in the hospital where she spent three
days with facial lacerations, broken bones in her face and a
cut on her head. Moroffko testified that she does not
remember anything from the time she sustained a blow to the
head until waking up in the hospital. She stated that she was
3
unconscious during that period. When Moroffko was examined,
spermatozoa were found on her “thighs, external genitalia,
vaginal cervical, perianal buttocks and anal/rectum smears.”
The Sexual Assault Nurse who examined Moroffko at the hospital
found only minor abrasions in the genital-rectal area, not
visible to the naked eye. There was no blood found on the
anal/rectal swabs. Blood was present “on the vaginal,
cervical and [lips/lip] area swabs, on the dental floss and in
the oral rinse.” After DNA testing, Membrano was eliminated
as a possible contributor of the sperm found, but Molina was
not. The probability that a randomly chosen unrelated
individual would have the same DNA pattern displayed in the
sample as Molina was "1 in greater than 6.0 billion."
Moroffko has a history of bipolar disorder, with both
manic and depressive episodes, drug and alcohol abuse,
depression, and seizures accompanied by blackouts involving
memory loss. She was prescribed lithium for her bipolar
condition. These “blackouts” or losses of memory occur when
Moroffko abuses medication, alcohol, or other drugs.
When Moroffko was examined at the hospital,
benzodiazepines and cocaine were found in her blood. She also
had a blood alcohol level almost three times the legal limit
for the operation of a motor vehicle. Moroffko's lithium
level, however, was lower than that of a person taking the
4
proper dosage for bipolar disorder. Moroffko's psychiatrist
testified that failure to take the lithium as directed could
result in either depression or hypomania, a state
characterized by increased energy and impulsive behavior.
Although Moroffko admitted she kissed Molina, she
maintains that she did not consent to sexual intercourse with
anyone. Additionally, Moroffko does not recall moving from
the wall where she was sitting with Molina to the area where
she was found. In contrast, Molina stated that at Moroffko's
request, they went behind the store and had consensual vaginal
intercourse. Molina denied having anal intercourse with
Moroffko. He told the police he "had no idea that [Moroffko]
was injured or how she was injured."
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
Our “sole responsibility in reviewing [jury instructions]
is to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the
instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly
raises.” Swisher v. Swisher, 223 Va. 499, 503, 290 S.E.2d
856, 858 (1982). In determining the sufficiency of the
evidence, we review the evidence and “all reasonable
inferences flowing therefrom” in the “light most favorable” to
the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court.
Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 S.E.2d 781, 786
5
(2003). Additionally, we must “regard as true all the
credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair
inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Parks v. Commonwealth, 221
Va. 492, 498, 270 S.E.2d 755, 759 (1980) (citations omitted).
We “will not disturb the trial court's judgment unless it is
plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Hedrick v.
Commonwealth, 257 Va. 328, 340, 513 S.E.2d 634, 641 (1999).
B. Instruction 14
Virginia Code § 18.2-61(A), in effect at the time of this
offense, provided:
If any person has sexual intercourse with a
complaining witness who is not his or her spouse
or causes a complaining witness, whether or not
his or her spouse, to engage in sexual
intercourse with any other person and such act is
accomplished (i) against the complaining
witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation
of or against the complaining witness or another
person, or (ii) through the use of the
complaining witness's mental incapacity or
physical helplessness, or (iii) with a child
under age thirteen as the victim, he or she shall
be guilty of rape.
The statute defined four distinct circumstances of sexual
intercourse: (i) against a victim's will by force, threat or
intimidation, (ii) through the use of the victim's mental
incapacity, (iii) through the use of the victim's physical
helplessness, or (iv) with a victim under age thirteen. The
only issue before us involves whether mental incapacity of the
6
victim was properly included in the jury instruction as a
method of commission of rape under the facts of this case.
Jury Instruction 14 was given to the jury. It
stated:
The Court instructs the jury that the
defendant is charged with the crime of rape.
The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt each of the following elements of that
crime:
(1) That the defendant had sexual
intercourse with Stephanie Moroffko who was not
then the defendant's spouse; and
(2) That it was against her will and
without her consent; and
(3) That it was by force, threat or
intimidation; or by the use of her mental
incapacity or physical helplessness.
If you find from the evidence that the
Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt each of the above elements of the offense
as charged, then you shall find the defendant
guilty but you shall not fix punishment until
your verdict has been returned and further
evidence has been heard by you.
If you find that the Commonwealth has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either
of the above offenses, then you shall find the
defendant not guilty.
Among other arguments, Molina maintains that the instruction
is erroneous because it is "confusing" and because its
disjunctive nature permits a less than unanimous finding by
the jury concerning the method employed to commit the crime.
The Court of Appeals assumed without deciding that the
instruction was erroneous and held that, if erroneous, it was
harmless error. However, our review of the record reveals
7
that these two arguments were waived because Molina did not
make those arguments to the trial court. In oral argument
before this Court, counsel for Molina conceded that no
argument was made at trial based upon "confusion" or potential
non-unanimous verdict prior to submission of the instruction
to the jury. Accordingly, these objections will not be
considered for the first time on appeal. Rule 5:25; see
Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 523, 619 S.E.2d 16, 57
(2005); Wackwitz v. Roy, 244 Va. 60, 63, 418 S.E.2d 861, 863
(1992).
Molina did argue at trial that there was insufficient
evidence of mental incapacity of the victim to include that
condition in Instruction 14. "Mental incapacity," a statutory
term that applies to rape and other sex crimes, in Chapter 4,
Article 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, is defined as
"that condition of the complaining witness existing at the
time of an offense . . . which prevents the complaining
witness from understanding the nature or consequences of the
sexual act involved in such offense and about which the
accused knew or should have known." Code § 18.2-67.10(3).
Molina argues that the statutory term "mental incapacity" is
limited to a permanent mental condition such as retardation
rather than a transitory condition such as voluntary
intoxication. Accordingly, Molina maintains that there was no
8
evidence of a permanent mental condition suffered by Moroffko
such that she did not understand "the nature and consequences
of the sexual act involved."
We disagree with Molina's narrow construction of the
statute. Nothing in the statutory definition itself limits
the definition of "mental incapacity" to a permanent
condition. Instead, the meaning is found in the incapacity
described: "which prevents the complaining witness from
understanding the nature or consequences of the sexual act."
Further, the definition refers to a condition existing "at the
time of an offense" and does not limit its scope to non-
transitory conditions. We hold that the term "mental
incapacity" may extend to a transitory circumstance such as
intoxication if the nature and degree of the intoxication has
gone beyond the stage of merely reduced inhibition and has
reached a point where the victim does not understand "the
nature or consequences of the sexual act." Code § 18.2-
67.10(3).
Other states that have considered the issue,
understandably, focus upon the inability to give consent to
the act itself. The cause of the victim's lack of ability to
give consent is not dispositive. See State v. Farnum, 554
N.W.2d 716, 721 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (recognizing that
although incapacity "is generally applied in cases of retarded
9
or low-functioning victims," it may be applied to a seriously
intoxicated victim); State v. Al-Hamdani, 36 P.3d 1103, 1107
(Wash. Ct. App. 2001) ("It is important to distinguish between
a person's general ability to understand the nature and
consequences of sexual intercourse and that person's ability
to understand the nature and consequences at a given time and
in a given situation." (emphasis added)), review denied, 60
P.3d 1211 (Wash. 2003); see also State v. McDowell, 427 So. 2d
1346, 1350 (La. Ct. App. 1983) (in rape cases, the fundamental
question is whether or not the mental condition of the victim
is so impaired that legal consent cannot be exercised or
given.)
Considering the definition of "mental incapacity," we
must review the record to determine whether there was prima
facie evidence presented to support inclusion of "mental
incapacity" as a method of committing the crime of rape. The
evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth includes the fact that, at the time of the sexual
acts, Moroffko was under the influence of benzodiazepines and
cocaine, an opiate. Her lithium blood levels were below
therapeutic dosage. Her blood alcohol levels were almost
three times the legal limit for the lawful operation of an
automobile in Virginia. Even Molina's expert witness
described Moroffko's combination of medication, drugs, and
10
alcohol as "deadly." This evidence was sufficient to enable a
jury to conclude that Moroffko was mentally incapable of
understanding "the nature or consequences of the sexual act
involved" at the time of the assault. Additionally, Moroffko
had been struck on the head and evidence was presented in
support of the conclusion that she suffered a seizure. We
hold that there was sufficient evidence to instruct the jury
that they could find Molina guilty of rape based upon
Moroffko's mental incapacity of which he "knew or should have
known" at the time of the sexual acts. Code § 18.2-67.10(3).
C. Forcible Sodomy
Molina argues that the evidence was insufficient to show
force in the commission of sodomy. We disagree. Code § 18.2-
67.1(A) provides:
An accused shall be guilty of forcible sodomy if
he or she engages in . . . anal intercourse with
a complaining witness . . . and . . . [t]he act
is accomplished against the will of the
complaining witness, by force, threat or
intimidation of or against the complaining
witness or another person. . . .
Molina denies that he had anal intercourse with Moroffko.
However, spermatozoa were found approximately one to two
inches inside Moroffko's anal cavity. DNA analysis of the
spermatozoa revealed that the probability that a randomly
chosen unrelated individual would have the same DNA pattern
displayed in the sample as Molina was "1 in greater than 6.0
11
billion." Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, there was sufficient evidence
that a jury could reasonably conclude that Molina and Moroffko
engaged in anal intercourse.
Additionally, there is sufficient evidence that a jury
could reasonably conclude that Molina used force to sodomize
Moroffko. First, there is evidence that as Molina sat with
Moroffko on the brick wall Moroffko was either “hit by
something hard” on the back of her head or she fell and “hit
against something.” Moroffko, however, does not know who or
what hit her and she did not see who or what hit her. Second,
Moroffko lost consciousness after being hit or hitting her
head and suffered facial lacerations, broken bones in her face
and a cut on her head. Third, the evidence reasonably
suggests that Moroffko was dragged from the brick wall to the
area near the bush and dumpster behind the convenience store.
After being hit or hitting her head, Moroffko does not recall
getting up from the brick wall or moving to the bush behind
the convenience store where she was found unconscious.
Furthermore, Molina concedes that he had sex with Moroffko
some distance from the brick wall. Finally, although Moroffko
admitted to kissing Molina, she maintains that she did not
consent to any form of sexual intercourse with anyone on that
day.
12
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence on appeal, we must view the
evidence and all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible therefrom in the light most favorable
to the Commonwealth. Higginbotham v.
Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534,
537 (1975). We will not disturb the fact
finder's verdict unless it is plainly wrong or
without evidence to support it. Stockton v.
Commonwealth, 227 Va. 124, 145, 314 S.E.2d 371,
385, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873 (1984).
Ward v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 648, 654, 570 S.E.2d 827, 831
(2002).
III. CONCLUSION
The judgment of the Court of Appeals will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
13