Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 7. Crimes Involving Health and Safety » Article 1. Drugs
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-263 (2026)

Unnecessary to negative exception, etc.; burden of proof of exception, etc

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any complaint, information, or indictment, and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this article or of the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.), it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption contained in this article or in the Drug Control Act, and the burden of proof of any such exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption shall be upon the defendant.

Code 1950, § 54-524.108; 1970, c. 650; 1975, cc. 14, 15.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Williams v. Commonwealth, 702 S.E.2d 260 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Commonwealth, 702 S.E.2d 260 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 30× “On appeal, he contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient because the Commonwealth failed to prove he had no valid prescription to obtain the drug; (2) Code § 18.2-263, relied upon by the Commonwealth, is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to state a standard of proof for…”
Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 247 S.E.2d 360 (Va. 1978). · cites it 5× “And Code §18.2-263 takes note of the fact that a defendant is the person with the greatest knowledge and easiest access to evidence to show that his sale or distribution was one of accommodation and not a commercial transaction, and therefore relieves the Commonwealth of what…”
Winston v. Commonwealth, 434 S.E.2d 4 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “However, to benefit from this sentencing advantage, the statute, together with Code § 18.2-263, 3 “place[s] the burden of proving the existence of an accommodation distribution .”
Shavin v. Commonwealth, 437 S.E.2d 411 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “However, the cases he cites in support of this assertion are from other jurisdictions, and such an interpretation is entirely at odds with the wording of the statute.”
Foster v. Commonwealth, 567 S.E.2d 547 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). “This statute and § 18.2-263 place the burden of proving the existence of an accommodation distribution (and the right to the lesser penalty) to the trier of fact on the shoulders of the defendant.”
Heacock v. Commonwealth, 323 S.E.2d 90 (Va. 1984). “] 2 § 18.2-263. Unnecessary to negative exception, etc.”
Jerry Lee Jordan v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 653 F.2d 870 (4th Cir. 1980). “Its answer would depend upon whether in applying Blockburger’s test the scope of required proof under the two charges is considered to include matters of affirmative defense (legal obtainment of the controlled substance under the felony charge, see Va.Code § 18.2-263), and…”
Thomas Othel Thompson, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 865 S.E.2d 434 (Va. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 29× “any provision of this article,” which proscribes various drug crimes, “it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption contained in this article.” Code § 18.”
Jordan Darrell Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 886 S.E.2d 722 (Va. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7× “Still, the parties’ assumption here that the defendant bears the burden of production and persuasion was probably correct under Code § 18.2-263. That statute imposes “the burden of proof” on the defendant to establish “any exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption contained in…”
Richard Amos Taylor v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 1197193 (Va. Ct. App. July 28, 2020). · cites it 2× “Code § 18.2-263 specifically provides that the Commonwealth is not required to “negative any exception” contained in Code § 18.”
Jordan Darrell Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 876 S.E.2d 182 (Va. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “03, nor have they addressed the relevance of Code § 18.2-263 (stating for referenced drug offenses that “the burden of proof of any .”
Jordan Darrell Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 1194212 (Va. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2022). · cites it 2× “03, nor have they addressed the relevance of Code § 18.2-263 (stating for referenced drug offenses that “the burden of proof of any .”
Show all 14 citing 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.