Former Amissville resident William McGinnis was found guilty Monday of two of three probation violations after a lengthy discussion in Rappahannock County Circuit Court on what it means to have “contact” with a minor. The probation violations stem from child abuse charges he pleaded guilty to in June.
McGinnis, 41, stood accused of violating three conditions of his probation — failure to follow instructions, be truthful and cooperative with his probation officer, and two special conditions requiring him to report and receive approval on any electronic devices and maintain no contact with minors without a chaperone.
McGinnis’ lawyer, Paul Fore, said he did not object to two of the violations, but argued that McGinnis was not made aware that a “chaperone” must be authorized by the probation office, and asked what constitutes “contact” in this situation.
“What does it mean to ‘have contact’ — is it brushing by them in the grocery store? Talking to them?” Fore asked during the proceeding presided over by Judge William Sharp.
During his testimony, McGinnis said that while moving furniture from a home, he was “in the vicinity” of two of his fiancé’s nephews, ages eight and 11, on about 10 separate occasions, but did not touch or speak to them. He said multiple other adults were present.
“I was in the vicinity, but I did not have contact,” McGinnis said.
McGinnis also said he did not think the potential contact was “an issue of concern” at the time, but felt compelled to tell his probation officer in October, about two months later.
“I spilled the beans… I let it all out,” McGinnis said. “I was in the same vicinity as [the children] but I never carried out a conversation with them, never nothing.”
Commonwealth’s Attorney Art Goff argued that although McGinnis claims his fiancé acted as a chaperone, she was not approved to do so by the probation office. He also noted that McGinnis did not disclose until months later that the potential contact occurred.
“Judge, I’d ask you to put your common sense interpretation hat on — ‘spilling the beans’ means ratting on yourself,” Goff said.
Sign up for Rapp News Daily, a free newsletter delivered to your email inbox every morning.
Fore asked probation representative Lori Sisson during her testimony if she had a copy of the document McGinnis signed outlining the rules of his probation, which she did not have. She could not definitively recall if the document outlined the chaperone approval process.
Sisson said it is “routine” for people with special sex offender probation conditions to be informed that chaperones need to be approved, but could not confirm the conversation occurred between McGinnis and his probation officer.
She also clarified that “incidental contact” — such as brushing past a child in public — is not a violation of the probation conditions, and “contact” is considered talking to a child, touching them or being in a room with a child unsupervised.
Sharp ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to confirm if it was made “clear to [McGinnis] if any supervision would need to be approved in advance,” but did find him guilty of violating the other two probation conditions.
“I was stupid, thought I was smarter about things … I’ve got a lot of making up to do, and I can’t do anything about it while I’m incarcerated, sir,” McGinnis said.
Sharp revoked McGinnis’ probation, and sentenced him to three months of incarceration, with credit for time served — over two months since his arrest last year. When he is released, he will return to probation for the same period of time, according to Sharp’s ruling.
