Defiling a dead body conviction upheld

Where appellant assisted in disposing of a body by dumping it “in a garbage-strewn and filthy park, leaving it at the mercy of marauding animals,” he was properly convicted of defiling a dead body under Code § 18.2-323.02.

Appellant’s argument that to “defile” a body requires evidence that the body was sexually molested, or that some physical act must be committed to the body, “separate and apart from abandoning [a] body to decompose over time,” is not well-taken.

Background

Appellant was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter, concealing a dead body and defiling a dead body in connection with the homicide of Jordan, his girlfriend. On Nov. 17, 2007, appellant asked Goodson to help him dispose of the body.

“Arriving at Barraud Park in Norfolk, they removed the body from the vehicle and placed it between bushes by the river next to the park. The area was filthy, littered with pill bottles and used condoms.

“They picked Barraud Park because the victim’s death would look more like something that happened in that neighborhood, and it wouldn’t raise [suspicion] towards [appellant].

“At appellant’s request, Goodson had the vehicle’s tires changed so that the tread marks would not match any marks subsequently identified at the park. Appellant’s parents paid Goodson $10,000 to help dispose of the body.”

When the “badly decomposed” body was discovered on Dec. 28, 2007, it was covered with leaves. Police investigators “collected nearly sixty items, including beer bottles and cans, cigar butts, packaging for gauze, a piece of paper with boot prints on it, and several more items that could be characterized as garbage.”

The medical examiner concluded the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head.

Appellant appeals the conviction for defiling a dead body.

Analysis

“Appellant argues, as he did at trial, that to ‘defile’ a body under Code § 18.2-126(B) requires proof that he committed a specific physical act to Jordan’s body, separate and apart from abandoning her body to decompose over time. He also argues that the meaning of ‘defile’ in Code § 18.2-126(B) has the same meaning as ‘defile’ in Code § 18.2-48, i.e., ‘sexually molest.’ Appellant thus asserts that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because there was no evidence that he sexually molested Jordan’s dead body.”

This appeal turns on the meaning of “defiles” as used in Code § 18.2-126(B). The statute does not define the term. In Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 615 (1982), the court allowed a jury instruction to substitute the word “defile” with the term “sexually molest” in Code § 18.2-48, which deals with abducting persons for sexual purposes. Appellant relies on Fitzgerald to argue his conviction should be overturned.

“‘Statutes which have the same general or common purpose or are parts of the same general plan are …  ordinarily considered as in pari materia.’ … However, where the legislative intent of two statutes is not the same, the definition applied in one statute cannot be transferred to the other. …

“The legislative intent of Code § 18.2-126 is to protect the sanctity of both a burial place and a dead body, wherever situated. That is not the same intent encompassed in Code § 18.2-48. Accordingly, the meaning of ‘defile’ in Code § 18.2-126(B) is not limited to the meaning of ‘defile’ in Code § 18.2-48.

“‘An undefined term must be ‘given its ordinary meaning, given the context in which it is used.’ … Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘defile’ as: ‘1. To make dirty; to physically soil. 2. To make less pure and good, esp. by showing disrespect; to dishonor. 3. To make ceremonially unclean; to desecrate. 4. To morally corrupt (someone). 5. Archaic. To debauch (a person; to deprive (a person) of chastity.’ …

“A fair reading of the above definition would refer to acts that disrespect, dishonor, or desecrate a dead body, in contrast to disinterring a body that has been deposited in a grave.

“The term ‘defile’ also is found in other statutes in the Code that do not use the term in a sexual context. …

“We find appellant’s reliance on Fitzgerald unavailing because the holding was limited to defining ‘defile’ within the context of Code § 18.2-48. Applying that same definition of ‘defile’ as the only meaning of the term as it is used in Code § 18.2-126(B) results in a strained interpretation inconsistent with the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word. Because we do not find appellant’s interpretation a reasonable construction of the statute, the rule of lenity does not control. …

“Appellant dumped Jordan’s body in a garbage-strewn and filthy park, leaving it at the mercy of marauding animals that ultimately gnawed off part of her body. He purposely left her body in an area where harm to the sanctity of the body was foreseeable and, in fact, ultimately caused such severe disfigurement to her body that dental records were needed to identify it. His actions clearly showed disrespect for the corpse. We therefore find the evidence sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction.”

Affirmed.

Everett v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1679-18-1, April 14, 2020. CAV (Frank) from Norfolk Cir. Ct. (Jones) Andrew M. Sacks for appellant, Lauren C. Campbell for appellee. VLW 020-7-082, 10 pp. Unpublished.