FRONT ROYAL – An Arlington man recently acquitted of rape could face jail time for giving authorities false identification.
A jury in Warren County Circuit Court in November found Baterdene Batjargal not guilty of one count of rape. The jury found Batjargal guilty of providing false information to law enforcement to avoid prosecution, a misdemeanor.
Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Bryan C. Layton prosecuted the case. Bradley Pollack represented Batjargal, who pleaded not guilty to the three charges when arraigned at the trial.
Layton presented evidence and then rested his case. Pollack made a motion to strike the commonwealth’s evidence in the rape charge on the grounds that the prosecutor failed to prove its case pertaining to the felony. Pollack argued that the evidence presented by Layton was insufficient to convict the defendant and, as such, Batjargal was not guilty of rape.
The judge denied Pollack’s motion, noted his exception and the trial continued with the defense presenting its evidence. Layton followed with rebuttal evidence.
Pollack renewed his motion to strike the commonwealth’s evidence. The judge again denied the defense’s motion and noted Pollack’s exception.
The jury deliberated and returned with verdicts of not guilty on the count of rape and guilty on the charges of forging a public document and identity theft to avoid arrest.
Layton then presented additional evidence as to the defendant’s criminal history. Layton and Pollack made arguments as Batjargal’s punishment.
The jury deliberated on punishment and returned to recommend that the court sentence Batjargal to serve four months in jail and to pay a $2,500 fine.
Identity theft, a Class 1 misdemeanor, carries a maximum punishment of 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
Batjargal pleaded guilty on the same day as his trial to one count of forging a public record. The Class 4 felony carries a maximum punishment of no less than two years and no more than 10 years in prison.
The judge scheduled Batjargal’s sentencing hearing for Feb. 20 and ordered the defendant into the sheriff’s custody. The judge ordered the probation officer to conduct a pre-sentencing investigation and that the defendant undergo substance abuse screening.