Upon the trial of the warrant on appeal the court may, upon its own motion or upon the request either of the attorney for the prosecution or for the accused, amend the form of the warrant in any respect in which it appears to be defective. But when the warrant is so defective in form that it does not substantially appear from the same what is the offense with which the accused is charged, or even when it is not so seriously defective, the judge of the court having examined on oath the original complainant, if there be one, or if he sees good reason to believe that an offense has been committed, then without examination of witnesses, may issue under his own hand his warrant reciting the offense and requiring the defendant in the original warrant to be arrested and brought before him. Upon the arrest of the defendant on the new warrant and his production or appearance in court the trial shall proceed upon the new warrant. When there is an amendment of the original warrant the trial shall proceed on the amended warrant. But whether the warrant is amended or a new warrant is issued, the court before proceeding to trial on the same may grant a continuance to the prosecution or to the defendant upon such terms as to costs as may be proper under the circumstances of the case; provided, however, that if the warrant be amended or if a new warrant be issued after any evidence has been heard, the accused shall be entitled to a continuance as a matter of right.
When a warrant is amended or a new warrant is issued the costs already accrued shall be taxed against the defendant, if he is ultimately convicted, as a part of the costs arising under the new or amended warrant.
1956, c. 555; 1958, c. 399.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case:
Rawls v. Com., 634 S.E.2d 697 (Va. 2006).
Rawls v. Com., 634 S.E.2d 697 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The Commonwealth responds that Rawls' waiver of indictment on the original warrant did not limit the authority of the trial court to permit amendment of that warrant, "because it did not change the nature of the charge" against Rawls.”
Ledbetter v. Commonwealth, 447 S.E.2d 250 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 12× “The trial court overruled Ledbetter’s objections, stating that Code § 16.1-137 “contemplates a situation such as this.”
Raja v. Commonwealth, 581 S.E.2d 237 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Further, as Raja himself conceded before the circuit court, there is no question that this particular charge, by its very nature, involves multiple instances of conduct, taking place on “expansive dates.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 641 S.E.2d 771 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2d 697, 702 (2006) (citing Code § 16.1-137; Robinson v. Commonwealth, 206 Va.”
Royals v. City of Hampton, 111 S.E.2d 795 (Va. 1960).
· cites it 2× “The intent of that section and section 16.1-137, 1958 Cumulative Supplement, providing for the amendment of defective warrants, in effect, is to grant a new trial to the accused, with the opportunity to have every advantage which he would have had had he been tried originally in…”
Kincaid v. Commonwealth, 105 S.E.2d 846 (Va. 1958).
“The Commonwealth argues that the failure of the trial court to amend the warrant as authorized by §§ 16.1-137 and 19-149 did not prejudice the rights of the accused.”
Robinson v. Commonwealth, 146 S.E.2d 197 (Va. 1966).
“It is also true that the judge of the trial court,, under the authority of Code, § 16.1-137, had the power to amend the warrant or, upon good reason, to dismiss it and issue a new one, under his own hand, properly charging a violation of the state statute, before the trial…”
Laing v. Commonwealth, 127 S.E.2d 142 (Va. 1962).
· cites it 2× “That court had full power, on its own motion, to “amend the form of the warrant in any respect in which it appears to be defective,” or to issue a new warrant, Code § 16.1-137; Ossa v. Town of Appalachia, 137 Va.”
Barbara Gail Watkins v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “The applicable statute is Code § 16.1-137, "Procedure on appeal when warrant defective," which provides in pertinent part as follows: Upon the trial of the warrant on appeal the court may, upon its own motion or upon the request either of the attorney for the prosecution or for…”
Bernard Luther Dennis v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Code § 16.1-137 provides that “[u]pon the trial of the warrant on appeal the [circuit] court may, upon its own motion or upon the request either of the attorney for the prosecution or for the accused, amend the form of the warrant in any respect in which it appears to be…”
Commonwealth v. Boltz, 10 Va. Cir. 27 (Rockingham Cir. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 3× “The Supreme Court has previously held that: Trials on appeal to the circuit court are required to be conducted without formal pleadings (Code Section 4990) (now Code § 16.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.