Except as otherwise provided by law for a juvenile found guilty of a felony in circuit court whose case is disposed of in the same manner as an adult criminal case, a finding of guilty on a petition charging delinquency under the provisions of this law shall not operate to impose any of the civil disabilities ordinarily imposed by conviction for a crime, nor shall any such finding operate to disqualify the child for employment by any state or local governmental agency.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit the State Police or a police department or sheriff's office that is a part of or administered by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof from denying employment to a person who had been adjudicated delinquent where such denial is based on the nature and gravity of the offense, the time since adjudication, the time since completion of any sentence, and the nature of the job sought.
Code 1950, § 16.1-179; 1956, c. 555; 1977, c. 559; 1996, cc. 755, 914; 2011, c. 622.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case:
Griffin v. Commonwealth, 533 S.E.2d 653 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
Griffin v. Commonwealth, 533 S.E.2d 653 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 16× “EX POST FACTO APPLICATION Next, appellant contends that when he was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court in 1994, his convictions did not carry any additional consequences as proscribed by Code § 16.1-308. However, when the legislature amended that statute in 1996, appellant…”
Brown v. Com., 688 S.E.2d 185 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 2× “1-273(A); Code § 16.1-308; Code § 16.1-228. [*] In light of the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Roper v.”
United States v. Crudup, 225 F. Supp. 2d 688 (E.D. Va. 2002).
· cites it 10× “The Defendant cites Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-308 to support his contention that he retained his civil rights, to include his right to possess a firearm, in spite of the conviction in the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court in the City of Hampton on January 10, 2000.”
Conkling v. Commonwealth, 612 S.E.2d 235 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “AG 83 (juvenile court finding of “not innocent” on marijuana charge does not bar probation as a first time offender for later adult offense); 1977-1978 at 203, 77-78 Va.”
United States v. Davis, 234 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Va. 2002).
· cites it 5× “Va.Code Ann. § 16.1-308 (emphasis supplied).”
Lavinder v. Com., 395 S.E.2d 211 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “" See Code § 16.1-308. The Kiracofe decision, however, did not rest on the terminology used or any other single provision.”
McCain v. Commonwealth, 360 S.E.2d 854 (Va. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “The statute was repealed in 1977 and replaced with Code § 16.1-308. Code § 16.1-308 speaks in terms of “a finding of guilty.”
United States v. Bugg, 248 F. Supp. 2d 507 (E.D. Va. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-308 (Michie 1996). While it is true that certain juvenile adjudications may result in the loss of the right to possess a firearm under state law, § 16.”
Eric Durrell Jackson v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “On appeal, Jackson claims that the trial court should not have considered the previous offenses that he committed as a juvenile - 10 - when computing the sentencing guidelines recommendation because Code § 16.1-308 (repealed in 1997) was clear and unambiguous in its language…”
Commonwealth v. Smith, 37 Va. Cir. 291 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 3× “Counsel’s next point of contention deals with the conflict between § 16.1-308 and § 19.2-295.1. There is clearly an irreconcilable conflict between § 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.