A. It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.).
Upon the prosecution of a person for a violation of this section, ownership or occupancy of premises or vehicle upon or in which a controlled substance was found shall not create a presumption that such person either knowingly or intentionally possessed such controlled substance.
(a) Any person who violates this section with respect to any controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II of the Drug Control Act shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony, except that any person other than an inmate of a penal institution as defined in § 53.1-1 or in the custody of an employee thereof who violates this section with respect to a cannabimimetic agent is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(b) Any person other than an inmate of a penal institution as defined in § 53.1-1 or in the custody of an employee thereof, who violates this section with respect to a controlled substance classified in Schedule III shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(b1) Violation of this section with respect to a controlled substance classified in Schedule IV shall be punishable as a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(b2) Violation of this section with respect to a controlled substance classified in Schedule V shall be punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor.
(c) Violation of this section with respect to a controlled substance classified in Schedule VI shall be punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to members of state, federal, county, city or town law-enforcement agencies, jail officers, or correctional officers, as defined in § 53.1-1, certified as handlers of dogs trained in the detection of controlled substances when possession of a controlled substance or substances is necessary in the performance of their duties.
Code 1950, § 54-524.101:2; 1972, c. 798; 1973, c. 64; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1976, c. 614; 1978, cc. 151, 177, 179; 1979, c. 435; 1980, c. 285; 1991, c. 649; 1998, c. 116; 2014, cc. 674, 719.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
572
cases (
98 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
Sierra v. Commonwealth, 722 S.E.2d 656 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
Sierra v. Commonwealth, 722 S.E.2d 656 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 43× “Robert Alexander Sierra was convicted in a bench trial of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Code § 18.2-250. On appeal, Sierra challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was…”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 702 S.E.2d 260 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 16× “Christopher James Williams, appellant, was convicted, in a bench trial, of possessing a controlled drug not obtained by a valid prescription, in violation of Code § 18.2-250. On appeal, he contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient because the Commonwealth failed to prove he…”
Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 709 S.E.2d 717 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 8× “Appellant, Robert Dickerson, was convicted in a bench trial of cocaine possession in violation of Code § 18.2-250. On appeal, Dickerson argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him of this crime.”
Dodd v. Commonwealth, 649 S.E.2d 222 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 20× “Robert Nicholas Dodd (appellant) was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of possession of a controlled substance, pursuant to Code § 18.2-250. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence collected after his arrest.”
Haskins v. Commonwealth, 602 S.E.2d 402 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Haskins challenges his convictions for possession of cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-250(A) and for possession of a firearm while possessing cocaine in violation of Code § 18.”
Ervin v. Commonwealth, 704 S.E.2d 135 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 8× “" (citation omitted)); Code § 18.2-250(A) ("[O]wnership or occupancy of premises or vehicle upon or in which a controlled substance was found shall not create a presumption that such person either knowingly or intentionally possessed such controlled substance.”
Brown v. Commonwealth, 421 S.E.2d 877 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 12× “Although ownership or possession of the premises or vehicle where drugs are does not create a presumption of knowing possession of drugs found on the premises or in the vehicle, Code § 18.2-250, nevertheless, the finder of fact may infer from the value of drugs found on premises…”
Harris v. Commonwealth, 500 S.E.2d 257 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 12× “He contends the trial court erred when it (1) denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop of a car in which he was a passenger and (2) admitted into evidence a police officer's testimony regarding out-of-court statements made by the car's driver.”
Kelly v. Commonwealth, 584 S.E.2d 444 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “[a] vehicle upon or in which a controlled substance was found shall not create a presumption that such person either knowingly or intentionally possessed such controlled substance.”
Castaneda v. Commonwealth, 376 S.E.2d 82 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 12× “In determining whether a defendant constructively possessed drugs, defendant's proximity to the drugs and his occupancy of the vehicle must also be considered.”
Josephs v. Commonwealth, 390 S.E.2d 491 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 8× “" The trial judge was entitled to consider this note and from it he could have concluded that she knew that marijuana was in the trunk, although this was the first time she had driven with it. In determining whether a defendant constructively possessed drugs, the defendant's…”
Edward Leonard Christian, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 721 S.E.2d 809 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 14× “(appellant), was tried by a judge of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond and found guilty of possession of a controlled substance in violation of *606 Code § 18.2-250(A)(a). 2 On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-250(A) — 44 cases
Haskins v. Commonwealth, 602 S.E.2d 402 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
“Haskins challenges his convictions for possession of cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-250(A) and for possession of a firearm while possessing cocaine in violation of Code § 18.”
Ervin v. Commonwealth, 704 S.E.2d 135 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“" (citation omitted)); Code § 18.2-250(A) ("[O]wnership or occupancy of premises or vehicle upon or in which a controlled substance was found shall not create a presumption that such person either knowingly or intentionally possessed such controlled substance.”
Sierra v. Commonwealth, 722 S.E.2d 656 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“Robert Alexander Sierra was convicted in a bench trial of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Code § 18.2-250. On appeal, Sierra challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was…”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 702 S.E.2d 260 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“Christopher James Williams, appellant, was convicted, in a bench trial, of possessing a controlled drug not obtained by a valid prescription, in violation of Code § 18.2-250. On appeal, he contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient because the Commonwealth failed to prove he…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-250(A)(a) — 17 cases
Edward Leonard Christian, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 721 S.E.2d 809 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“(appellant), was tried by a judge of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond and found guilty of possession of a controlled substance in violation of *606 Code § 18.2-250(A)(a). 2 On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-250(A)(b) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-250(A)(b1) — 4 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-250(a) — 4 cases
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.