A. It is unlawful for any responsible person to abuse or neglect any vulnerable adult. Any responsible person who abuses or neglects a vulnerable adult in violation of this section and the abuse or neglect does not result in serious bodily injury or disease to the vulnerable adult is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any responsible person who is convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this subsection is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
B. Any responsible person who abuses or neglects a vulnerable adult in violation of this section and the abuse or neglect results in serious bodily injury or disease to the vulnerable adult is guilty of a Class 4 felony. Any responsible person who abuses or neglects a vulnerable adult in violation of this section and the abuse or neglect results in the death of the vulnerable adult is guilty of a Class 3 felony.
C. For purposes of this section:
"Abuse" means (i) knowing and willful conduct that causes physical injury or pain or (ii) knowing and willful use of physical restraint, including confinement, as punishment, for convenience or as a substitute for treatment, except where such conduct or physical restraint, including confinement, is a part of care or treatment and is in furtherance of the health and safety of the vulnerable adult.
"Neglect" means the knowing and willful failure by a responsible person to provide treatment, care, goods, or services which results in injury to the health or endangers the safety of a vulnerable adult.
"Responsible person" means a person who has responsibility for the care, custody, or control of a vulnerable adult by operation of law or who has assumed such responsibility voluntarily by contract or in fact.
"Serious bodily injury or disease" includes but is not limited to (i) disfigurement, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, or (vi) life-threatening internal injuries or conditions, whether or not caused by trauma.
"Vulnerable adult" means any person 18 years of age or older who is impaired by reason of mental illness, intellectual or developmental disability, physical illness or disability, or other causes, including age, to the extent the adult lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make, communicate, or carry out reasonable decisions concerning his well-being or has one or more limitations that substantially impair the adult's ability to independently provide for his daily needs or safeguard his person, property, or legal interests.
D. No responsible person shall be in violation of this section whose conduct was (i) in accordance with the informed consent of the vulnerable adult that was given when he was not vulnerable or a person authorized to consent on his behalf; (ii) in accordance with a declaration by the vulnerable adult under the Health Care Decisions Act (§ 54.1-2981 et seq.) that was given when he was not vulnerable or with the provisions of a valid medical power of attorney; (iii) in accordance with the wishes of the vulnerable adult that were made known when he was not vulnerable or a person authorized to consent on behalf of the vulnerable adult and in accord with the tenets and practices of a church or religious denomination; (iv) incident to necessary movement of, placement of, or protection from harm to the vulnerable adult; or (v) a bona fide, recognized, or approved practice to provide medical care.
1992, c. 551; 1994, c. 620; 2000, c. 796; 2001, c. 181; 2004, c. 863; 2007, cc. 562, 653; 2012, cc. 476, 507; 2019, c. 234; 2022, cc. 259, 642.
Notes of Decisions
Richard C. Wagoner, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 756 S.E.2d 165 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 31× “2d 119, 124 (2005), where the Supreme Court affirmed this Court and the trial court’s conclusions that the defendant knowingly and willfully neglected her incapacitated mother and thus affirmed her conviction under Code § 18.2-369. Wagoner cites Shanklin v.”
Correll v. Com., 607 S.E.2d 119 (Va. 2005).
· cites it 16× “Code § 18.2-369 states in relevant part: 2 "A.”
Correll v. Commonwealth, 591 S.E.2d 712 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 10× “Shirley Correll appeals her conviction, after a bench trial, for abuse or neglect of her mother, Nellie Paxton, an incapacitated adult (in violation of Code § 18.2-369). 1 Correll contends the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient, as a matter of law, to establish…”
John Beverly Chapman, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 804 S.E.2d 326 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Similarly, both this Court and the Supreme Court have held that the General Assembly’s use of the phrase “results in” in Code § 18.2-369(B) evinces a legislative intent to impose a causation element.”
Morris v. Commonwealth, 622 S.E.2d 243 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “2d 119, 124 (2005) (interpreting the meaning of "willful" in Code § 18.2-369, which proscribes abuse or neglect of incapacitated adults, adopting definition given "willful" under Code § 18.”
Marshall v. Commonwealth, 708 S.E.2d 253 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “4 (prohibiting individual unlawfully in possession of controlled substance from “simultaneously with knowledge and intent” possessing firearms); Code § 18.2-369 (abuse of incapacitated adult means “knowing and willful conduct” causing physical injury or pain); Code § 18.”
Fergeson v. Commonwealth (ORDER) (Va. 2026).
· cites it 64× “Jason Joseph Fergeson appeals his conviction for misdemeanor abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult, in violation of Code § 18.2-369. He contends that the adult in question, his girlfriend, was not “vulnerable” as defined by the statute because she was only temporarily…”
Tomlin v. Commonwealth (Va. 2023).
· cites it 44× “The court concluded that Prewett’s testimony and the photographs of Betty’s wounds had sufficiently demonstrated that 2 Throughout this opinion, we have referenced Code § 18.2-369 as it was at the time of Tomlin’s conviction in March 2021.”
Jason Joseph Fergeson v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 36× “Jason Fergeson appeals his convictions for misdemeanor abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult, in violation of Code § 18.2-369, and misdemeanor attempting to interfere with a 9-1-1 call, in violation of Code § 18.”
Washington v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 774 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
“3:1 (street gang crimes); § 18.2-67.5:1 to-67.5:3 (sexual offenders); § 18.”
Brian Christopher Sammon v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 20× “On appeal, Sammon challenges the circuit court’s denial of his motion to strike, arguing that the victim was not a vulnerable person, as defined by Code § 18.2-369, that the victim did not suffer a significant physical impairment, and that Sammon did not intend to maim,…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-369(A) — 8 cases
Fergeson v. Commonwealth (ORDER) (Va. 2026).
“Jason Joseph Fergeson appeals his conviction for misdemeanor abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult, in violation of Code § 18.2-369. He contends that the adult in question, his girlfriend, was not “vulnerable” as defined by the statute because she was only temporarily…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-369(B) — 10 cases
Richard C. Wagoner, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 756 S.E.2d 165 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
“2d 119, 124 (2005), where the Supreme Court affirmed this Court and the trial court’s conclusions that the defendant knowingly and willfully neglected her incapacitated mother and thus affirmed her conviction under Code § 18.2-369. Wagoner cites Shanklin v.”
John Beverly Chapman, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 804 S.E.2d 326 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
“Similarly, both this Court and the Supreme Court have held that the General Assembly’s use of the phrase “results in” in Code § 18.2-369(B) evinces a legislative intent to impose a causation element.”
Correll v. Com., 607 S.E.2d 119 (Va. 2005).
“Code § 18.2-369 states in relevant part: 2 "A.”
Tomlin v. Commonwealth (Va. 2023).
“The court concluded that Prewett’s testimony and the photographs of Betty’s wounds had sufficiently demonstrated that 2 Throughout this opinion, we have referenced Code § 18.2-369 as it was at the time of Tomlin’s conviction in March 2021.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-369(C) — 11 cases
Fergeson v. Commonwealth (ORDER) (Va. 2026).
“Jason Joseph Fergeson appeals his conviction for misdemeanor abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult, in violation of Code § 18.2-369. He contends that the adult in question, his girlfriend, was not “vulnerable” as defined by the statute because she was only temporarily…”
Tomlin v. Commonwealth (Va. 2023).
“The court concluded that Prewett’s testimony and the photographs of Betty’s wounds had sufficiently demonstrated that 2 Throughout this opinion, we have referenced Code § 18.2-369 as it was at the time of Tomlin’s conviction in March 2021.”
Jason Joseph Fergeson v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
“Jason Fergeson appeals his convictions for misdemeanor abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult, in violation of Code § 18.2-369, and misdemeanor attempting to interfere with a 9-1-1 call, in violation of Code § 18.”
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.