A. If any person unlawfully destroys, defaces, damages, or removes without the intent to steal any property, real or personal, not his own, or breaks down, destroys, defaces, damages, or removes without the intent to steal, any monument or memorial for war veterans, not his own, described in § 15.2-1812; any monument erected to mark the site of any engagement fought during the Civil War, or any memorial to designate the boundaries of any city, town, tract of land, or any tree marked for that purpose, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, provided that the court may, in its discretion, dismiss the charge if the locality or organization that owns or is responsible for maintaining the injured property, monument, or memorial files a written affidavit with the court stating it has received full payment for the injury.
B. If any person who is not the owner of such property intentionally causes such injury, he is guilty of (i) a Class 1 misdemeanor if the value of or damage to the property, memorial, or monument is less than $1,000 or (ii) a Class 6 felony if the value of or damage to the property, memorial, or monument is $1,000 or more. The amount of loss caused by the destruction, defacing, damage, or removal of such property, memorial, or monument may be established by proof of the fair market cost of repair or fair market replacement value. Upon conviction, the court may order that the defendant pay restitution.
Code 1950, § 18.1-172; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15, 598; 1990, c. 933; 1999, c. 625; 2020, cc. 1100, 1101.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
100
cases (
32 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
Scott v. Commonwealth, 707 S.E.2d 17 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
Scott v. Commonwealth, 707 S.E.2d 17 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 122× “” In 1993, we held in Crowder that Code § 18.2-137, as it was then written, made it a crime for a person to damage the property of another by a criminally negligent act.”
Scott Edward Knight v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 733 S.E.2d 701 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 63× “2-51, and three counts of felony destruction of property in violation of Code § 18.2-137. 1 On appeal, appellant asserts (1) that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with malice or with intent to maim, disable, or kill – and…”
Crowder v. Commonwealth, 588 S.E.2d 384 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 16× “00 to property belonging to Neil Cash, in violation of Virginia Code Section 18.2-137.” During the bench trial, the Commonwealth called Neil Cash to testify regarding the damage to the property.”
McDuffie v. Commonwealth, 638 S.E.2d 139 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 10× “Code § 18.2-137 prohibits the destruction of, inter alia, a motor vehicle “not his own” by an individual.”
Eric William Wandemberg v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 825 S.E.2d 291 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 7× “2-57, misdemeanor “vandalism,”1 in violation of Code § 18.2-137, and damaging a telephone line (hereinafter, “interfering with a 911 phone call”),2 in violation of Code § 18.”
Andrew Lamont Spratley v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 818 S.E.2d 823 (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 16× “Andrew Lamont Spratley (“appellant”) appeals his conviction for felony destruction of personal property, in violation of Code § 18.2-137. Appellant contends that “[t]he trial court erred when it held that the Commonwealth sufficiently established that the fair market replacement…”
Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 401 S.E.2d 208 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 12× “In this criminal appeal we address whether one may be convicted of destruction of private property in violation of Code § 18.2-137, in addition to being convicted of burglary in violation of Code § 18.”
Freddy Velez-Suarez v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 767 S.E.2d 715 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “2-23 and -95 and destruction of property in violation of Code § 18.2-137. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred “in convicting [appellant] of conspiracy to commit grand larceny as the evidence was insufficient to establish [appellant] and Mr.”
Manns v. Commonwealth, 414 S.E.2d 613 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “, appeals from his conviction at a bench trial of the misdemeanor of interfering with the property rights of another in violation of Code § 18.2-137. On appeal, defendant asserts that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the conviction.”
Calvin Darnell Butcher v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 819 S.E.2d 862 (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “2-894 and felony destruction of property in violation of Code § 18.2-137. Violation of each statute can result in a conviction for a misdemeanor or, if certain aggravating factors are met, a felony.”
Justus v. Com., 645 S.E.2d 284 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2-51, and for misdemeanor destruction of property in violation of Code § 18.2-137. As a result of the indictments, the juvenile and domestic relations district court lost jurisdiction over the cases, and its records were transferred to the circuit court.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-137(A) — 11 cases
Scott v. Commonwealth, 707 S.E.2d 17 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“” In 1993, we held in Crowder that Code § 18.2-137, as it was then written, made it a crime for a person to damage the property of another by a criminally negligent act.”
Scott Edward Knight v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 733 S.E.2d 701 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“2-51, and three counts of felony destruction of property in violation of Code § 18.2-137. 1 On appeal, appellant asserts (1) that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with malice or with intent to maim, disable, or kill – and…”
McDuffie v. Commonwealth, 638 S.E.2d 139 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
“Code § 18.2-137 prohibits the destruction of, inter alia, a motor vehicle “not his own” by an individual.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-137(B) — 23 cases
Scott v. Commonwealth, 707 S.E.2d 17 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“” In 1993, we held in Crowder that Code § 18.2-137, as it was then written, made it a crime for a person to damage the property of another by a criminally negligent act.”
Scott Edward Knight v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 733 S.E.2d 701 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“2-51, and three counts of felony destruction of property in violation of Code § 18.2-137. 1 On appeal, appellant asserts (1) that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with malice or with intent to maim, disable, or kill – and…”
Eric William Wandemberg v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 825 S.E.2d 291 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
“2-57, misdemeanor “vandalism,”1 in violation of Code § 18.2-137, and damaging a telephone line (hereinafter, “interfering with a 911 phone call”),2 in violation of Code § 18.”
McDuffie v. Commonwealth, 638 S.E.2d 139 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
“Code § 18.2-137 prohibits the destruction of, inter alia, a motor vehicle “not his own” by an individual.”
Andrew Lamont Spratley v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 818 S.E.2d 823 (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
“Andrew Lamont Spratley (“appellant”) appeals his conviction for felony destruction of personal property, in violation of Code § 18.2-137. Appellant contends that “[t]he trial court erred when it held that the Commonwealth sufficiently established that the fair market replacement…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-137(B)(i) — 5 cases
Crowder v. Commonwealth, 588 S.E.2d 384 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“00 to property belonging to Neil Cash, in violation of Virginia Code Section 18.2-137.” During the bench trial, the Commonwealth called Neil Cash to testify regarding the damage to the property.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-137(B)(ii) — 6 cases
Crowder v. Commonwealth, 588 S.E.2d 384 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“00 to property belonging to Neil Cash, in violation of Virginia Code Section 18.2-137.” During the bench trial, the Commonwealth called Neil Cash to testify regarding the damage to the property.”
McDuffie v. Commonwealth, 638 S.E.2d 139 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
“Code § 18.2-137 prohibits the destruction of, inter alia, a motor vehicle “not his own” by an individual.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-137(b) — 1 case
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.