If any person maliciously discharges a firearm within any building when occupied by one or more persons in such a manner as to endanger the life or lives of such person or persons, or maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against any dwelling house or other building when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life or lives of any such person or persons may be put in peril, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 4 felony. In the event of the death of any person, resulting from such malicious shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of murder in the second degree. However, if the homicide is willful, deliberate and premeditated, he is guilty of murder in the first degree.
If any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony; and, in the event of the death of any person resulting from such unlawful shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. If any person willfully discharges a firearm within or shoots at any school building whether occupied or not, he is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
Code 1950, §§ 18.1-66, 18.1-152; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 738; 2005, c. 143.
Notes of Decisions
Tina Marie Bryant v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 798 S.E.2d 459 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 46× “OPINION BY JUDGE MARLA GRAFF DECKER Tina Marie Bryant appeals her conviction for unlawfully discharging a firearm within an occupied building in violation of Code § 18.2-279. She argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction because it did not prove that…”
Ellis v. Com., 706 S.E.2d 849 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 32× “In this appeal, the principal issue we consider is whether, in order to prove a violation of Code § 18.2-279, which makes it a criminal offense to discharge a firearm at or against any occupied building, the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant had a specific intent to…”
Bryant v. Commonwealth, 811 S.E.2d 250 (Va. 2018).
· cites it 14× “RUSSELL This appeal involves consideration of the elements of the crime of unlawfully discharging a firearm within an occupied building, made a Class 6 felony by Code § 18.2-279. Specifically, it presents the question whether the Commonwealth has the burden of proving that the…”
Robert Lee Jones v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 808 S.E.2d 220 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 25× “2-279 prohibits a person from unlawfully discharg[ing] a firearm within any building when occupied by one or more persons in such a manner as to endanger the life or lives of such person or persons[] .”
Fleming v. Commonwealth, 412 S.E.2d 180 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 14× “Michael Travis Fleming was convicted as a principal in the second degree for unlawfully shooting a firearm at an occupied dwelling, in violation of Code § 18.2-279, and for knowingly attempting to intimidate a witness, in violation of Code § 18.”
King v. Commonwealth, 578 S.E.2d 803 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 15× “(appellant) was convicted in a jury trial of maliciously shooting within an occupied dwelling, in violation of Code § 18.2-279. 1 The sole issue on appeal is whether the Commonwealth proved the allegation in the indictment that appellant shot at or threw a missile at or against…”
Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 255 S.E.2d 506 (Va. 1979).
· cites it 10× “put in peril” in violation of Code § 18.2-279 and with sending “an inscribed communication containing a threat to kill or do bodily injury” in violation of Code § 18.”
Eugene Harry Proctor, III v. Commonwealth, 578 S.E.2d 822 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 18× “lleges the trial court erred by: (1) permitting the Commonwealth to treat its own witness as hostile and impeach him through the use of a prior written statement, (2) admitting improper testimony from the victim’s mother, (3) not finding as a matter of law that the evidence was…”
Parnell v. Commonwealth, 423 S.E.2d 834 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 12× “2-83 and maliciously shooting at an occupied building in violation of Code § 18.2-279. 1 Parnell contends that the convictions should be reversed *344 because (1) the trial judge erred in instructing the jury concerning the term “threat;” (2) the trial judge erred in admitting…”
King v. Commonwealth, 570 S.E.2d 863 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 7× “Accordingly, at the conclusion of all the evidence, King’s counsel moved to strike the evidence regarding a violation of Code § 18.2-279, arguing as follows: I move to strike Indictment No.”
Kirby v. Commonwealth, 570 S.E.2d 832 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 6× “In Count 1 of the indictment, the defendant was charged with unlawfully and feloniously discharging “a firearm within a building when occupied by one or more persons whereby their lives or life were put in peril,” in violation of Code § 18.2-279. 1 In Count 2, the defendant was…”
Armstead v. Commonwealth, 685 S.E.2d 876 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× “While this Court has not outlined the elements of unlawful shooting at an occupied vehicle, we previously held that Code § 18.2-279, which governs shooting at an occupied dwelling and contains substantially similar language, is not a specific intent crime.”
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.