Siquina v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the evidence need not show that the defendant touched his victim’s sexual organs to reasonably infer his specific intent to rape
• holding that, under the indecent liberties statute, \whether an object is actually seen by its intended audience is irrelevant to whether that object has been exposed\
• holding that, under the indecent liberties statute, “whether an object is actually seen by its intended audience is irrelevant to whether that object has been exposed”
• construing the portion of Code § 18.2-370 that proscribed \knowingly and intentionally `expos[ing] [one's] sexual or genital parts to any child'\
• interpreting the indecent liberties statute, which forbids exposing one’s sexual or genital parts to a child
• interpreting the indecent liberties statute, which forbids exposing one's sexual or genital parts to a child

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).