The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Farhoumand v. Commonwealth
No. 140012Supreme Court of Virginia
140012 Farhoumand v. Commonwealth 10/31/2014 In a prosecution of the defendant for exposing his penis to a minor child in violation of Code § 18.2-370(A)(1), the view of the Court of Appeals that the term "exp…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
140012 Farhoumand v. Commonwealth 10/31/2014 In a prosecution of the defendant for exposing his penis to a minor child in violati…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- October 31, 2014
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
140012 Farhoumand v. Commonwealth 10/31/2014 In a prosecution of the defendant for exposing his penis to a minor child in violation of Code § 18.2-370(A)(1), the view of the Court of Appeals that the term "expose" under this statute includes tactile exposure is rejected. The plain meaning of the statute, the legislative history, and case law demonstrat that exposure is limited to a visual display where the child saw, or could have seen, the uncovered genitalia. To the extent that the trial court relied on a tactile definition of exposure in convicting the defendant such reliance was error. However, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to suppo…
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
No official record has been found at this time. We are watching for updates.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed; 1 such entry was left out of this case. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links