The Virginia Court of Appeals has reversed two convictions against James David Hazelwood for obscene sexual display, while affirming three convictions for violating a protective order. The court's decision, issued on June 9, 2026, clarifies the legal standards for what constitutes an "explicitly simulated" act of masturbation in public.
This ruling is significant as it addresses the legal definition of obscene sexual conduct and the evidentiary standards required for such convictions. The case impacts individuals facing similar charges and sets a precedent for how courts interpret laws regarding public sexual displays.
BACKGROUND
James David Hazelwood was charged with two counts of obscene sexual display under Virginia Code § 18.2-387.1 and three counts of violating a protective order under Virginia Code § 18.2-60.4. The incidents leading to these charges occurred between May 2019 and April 2020, primarily involving interactions with his neighbors, including Melody and Charles Double.
Hazelwood's legal troubles began with a series of confrontations with the Double siblings, who had a history of disputes with him. In August and September of 2019, he was charged with multiple offenses, including stalking and violations of protective orders. After a trial in the Hampton Circuit Court, which followed an appeal from a General District Court ruling, Hazelwood was convicted on several counts, leading to his appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
THE RULING
The Court of Appeals, composed of Judges AtLee, Chaney, and Bernhard, issued a published opinion authored by Judge David Bernhard. The court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to support the two convictions for obscene sexual display, stating, "No reasonable observer would have perceived Hazelwood’s conduct... as an unambiguous imitation of masturbation." The court emphasized that for a conviction under the statute, the conduct must clearly imitate the physical act of masturbation, not merely suggest it.
In contrast, the court affirmed the convictions for violating the protective order, noting that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to find Hazelwood guilty. The court highlighted that "contact" under the protective order statutes includes both direct and indirect contacts intentionally aimed at the protected individual.
IMPACT
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving charges of obscene sexual display. The court's clarification on what constitutes an "explicitly simulated" act of masturbation sets a higher threshold for such convictions, requiring clear and unambiguous evidence of intent and action. This decision may influence how similar cases are prosecuted in Virginia and could lead to changes in how evidence is presented in court.
Moreover, the affirmation of the protective order violations underscores the importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences of failing to do so. The ruling serves as a reminder that while the standards for proving obscenity may be stringent, violations of protective orders can still result in convictions based on the evidence presented.
WHAT'S NEXT
Hazelwood's case may still be subject to further legal action, including the possibility of an appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court regarding the affirmed protective order violations. Details were not available in the court filing about any related cases pending.