Abuse victim’s testimony alone sufficient to convict

Where appellant attacked his convictions for multiple sex crimes, arguing that the young victim’s testimony was not buttressed with corroborating eyewitnesses, or with medical and forensic evidence, his convictions are affirmed.

The victim’s testimony alone was sufficient to convict.

Sufficient evidence

Appellant Villarreal was convicted of multiple sex crimes involving his young stepdaughter during 2006. At trial, Villarreal moved to strike the evidence because the victim’s testimony, without more, was insufficient to convict. …

“Villarreal does not specifically argue that the record fails to establish an essential element of any of the offenses for which he was convicted. Instead, he contends that the evidence was insufficient because ‘the contradictory statements by [the victim], her unexplained failure to tell anyone about the alleged sexual assault for twelve years, until October 2018, the absence of corroboration in the form of medical or forensic evidence, the absence of other eyewitnesses to the alleged abuse, and the absence of confessions or incriminating statements by Villarreal constituted circumstances collectively pointing to a failure of the Commonwealth’s burden of proof.’

“It is well established under Virginia law that ‘a conviction for rape and other sexual offenses may be sustained solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.’ …

“‘The reason for the rule is the typically clandestine nature of the crime. There are seldom any witnesses to such an offense except the perpetrator and the victim.’ …

“Thus, as the Supreme Court has recognized, ‘A requirement of corroboration would cause most sex offenses to go unpunished.’ …

“Consequently, Villarreal’s argument that the evidence was insufficient because of ‘the absence of corroboration in the form of medical or forensic evidence, the absence of other eyewitnesses to the alleged abuse, and the absence of confessions or incriminating statements by Villarreal’ contradicts binding Supreme Court precedent establishing that no such evidence is required.”

Credibility

“‘[I]t is clear that the victim’s testimony, if credible and accepted by the finder of fact, is sufficient evidence, standing alone, to support the conviction.’ …

“Villarreal emphasizes that the victim in this case did not report any of the crimes to police until October 2018, nearly twelve years after the first time she could recall being sexually abused. However, ‘[t]he victim’s failure to immediately report the incident did not render h[er] testimony inherently incredible as a matter of law.’ …

“Instead, ‘it was up to the jury to determine what effect, if any, the delay in reporting the incident had on the credibility of the child’s testimony.’ …

“Moreover, the victim in this case clearly explained her reasons for not telling anyone as a child when she testified at trial that she was ‘afraid of people knowing what happened’ to her, that she ‘felt ashamed’ and ‘felt embarrassed,’ and that Villarreal had threatened to kill her when the family lived in Hawaii if she ever told anyone. …

“We certainly cannot say on appeal that the victim’s testimony in this case was inherently incredible as a matter of law because her testimony was not “so manifestly false that reasonable men ought not to believe it.”

Affirmed.

Villarreal v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0736-21-1, May 24, 2022. CAV (Beales) From the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News (Mills). Charles E. Haden for appellant. Liam A. Curry for appellee. VLW 022-7-160, 9 pp. Unpublished opinion.