that the victim’s vaginal area was often red, rashed, and her “clitoris would be very swollen.” On a nightly basis, the child would be “screaming and crying, and sitting in sitz baths in the tub because her pookie hurt.” The problem was so severe that the victim and her mother sought medical attention “many times.” The evidence of the victim’s pain and swollen clitoris established the element of penetration. Therefore, we cannot hold that the verdict was unsupported by the evidence or plainly wrong. Appellant likens the instant facts to those in Moore, where the victim testified that the defendant put his penis “on” her vagina, and the Supreme Court overturned the conviction for insufficient evidence of the essential element of penetration. See Moore, 254 Va. at 189, 491 S.E.2d at 741 (<HOLDING>). Appellant contends in the absence of medical
recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof holding variance between enhancement allegation and proof renders evidence legally insufficient only if variance is material holding evidence legally insufficient holding evidence legally sufficient holding proof of penetration is legally insufficient if the evidence is in a state of equipoise based on the commonwealths caseinchief