A. As used in this section, "use a communications system" means making personal contact or direct contact through any agent or agency, any print medium, the United States mail, any common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, the Internet, or any telecommunications, wire, computer network, or radio communications system.
B. It is unlawful for any person to use a communications system, including computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means for the purposes of procuring or promoting the use of a minor for any activity in violation of § 18.2-370 or 18.2-374.1. A violation of this subsection is a Class 6 felony.
C. It is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to use a communications system, including computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, for the purposes of soliciting, with lascivious intent, any person he knows or has reason to believe is a child younger than 15 years of age to knowingly and intentionally:
1. Expose his sexual or genital parts to any child to whom he is not legally married or propose that any such child expose his sexual or genital parts to such person;
2. Propose that any such child feel or fondle his own sexual or genital parts or the sexual or genital parts of such person or propose that such person feel or fondle the sexual or genital parts of any such child;
3. Propose to such child the performance of an act of sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus or any act constituting an offense under § 18.2-361; or
4. Entice, allure, persuade, or invite any such child to enter any vehicle, room, house, or other place, for any purposes set forth in the preceding subdivisions.
Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if the person is at least seven years older than the child he knows or has reason to believe is less than 15 years of age, the person shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than 30 years in a state correctional facility, five years of which shall be mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Any person who commits a second or subsequent violation of this subsection when the person is at least seven years older than the child he knows or has reason to believe is less than 15 years of age shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years nor more than 40 years, 10 years of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.
D. Any person who uses a communications system, including computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, for the purposes of soliciting, with lascivious intent, any child he knows or has reason to believe is at least 15 years of age but younger than 18 years of age to knowingly and intentionally commit any of the activities listed in subsection C if the person is at least seven years older than the child is guilty of a Class 5 felony. Any person who commits a second or subsequent violation of this subsection shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not less than one nor more than 20 years, one year of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.
D1. Any person 18 years of age or older who uses a communications system, including computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, with lascivious intent, to expose his sexual or genital parts to any person he knows or has reason to know is a child to whom he is not legally married and such child is 15 years of age or older is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
E. Any person 18 years of age or older who uses a communications system, including computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, for the purposes of soliciting any person he knows or has reason to believe is a child younger than 18 years of age for (i) any activity in violation of § 18.2-355 or 18.2-361, (ii) any activity in violation of § 18.2-374.1, or (iii) a violation of § 18.2-374.1:1 is guilty of a Class 5 felony.
1992, c. 699; 1999, c. 659; 2003, cc. 935, 938; 2004, cc. 414, 444, 459, 864; 2007, cc. 759, 823; 2013, cc. 423, 470; 2014, c. 794; 2025, c. 261.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
71
cases (
25 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case:
Dietz v. Commonwealth, 804 S.E.2d 309 (Va. 2017).
Dietz v. Commonwealth, 804 S.E.2d 309 (Va. 2017).
· cites it 58× “McCLANAHAN **126 The circuit court found Kimberlee Dietz, an elementary school teacher, guilty under Code § 18.2-374.3(B) 1 of the crime of using a cell phone for "purposes of procuring or promoting" one of her **127 11-year-old students for activity that would violate *311 Code…”
Timothy Ducharme v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 830 S.E.2d 924 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 43× “testified at trial that a 1 The indictment and the court’s orders stated that appellant was charged and convicted under Code § 18.2-374.3, but in response to defense counsel’s query at the beginning of trial, the prosecutor said that he was proceeding under subsection B of the…”
Podracky v. Commonwealth, 662 S.E.2d 81 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 46× “The defendant was convicted of violating Code § 18.2-374.3 (the indictment did not specify the subsection); he was also convicted of an attempted violation of Code § 18.”
Grafmuller v. Commonwealth, 698 S.E.2d 276 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 47× “Michael Grafmuller (appellant) pled guilty via an Alford plea 1 to violating Code § 18.2-374.3, 2 use of a communication system to solicit, with lascivious intent, a person he knows or has reason to believe is under the age of fifteen.”
Major Lance Hillman v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 811 S.E.2d 853 (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 20× “Major Lance Hillman (“appellant”) was found guilty of use of a computer to solicit a minor, in violation of Code § 18.2-374.3, and taking indecent liberties with a child, in violation of Code § 18.”
Colbert v. Commonwealth, 624 S.E.2d 108 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 27× “2-366, or clause (iv) of subsection B of § 18.2-374.3;.... (Emphasis in original.) Colbert points to the prefatory language in this subsection — “[w]here the victim is a minor” — in support of his contention that he is not subject to the Act’s offender registration requirement.”
Hix v. Com., 619 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 2005).
· cites it 21× “2-370 (the "attempted indecent liberties statute"), and the use of a computer to solicit a minor, Code § 18.2-374.3 (the "communications statute").”
Commonwealth v. Murgia, 827 S.E.2d 377 (Va. 2019).
· cites it 36× “Although Dietz involved the application of a different subsection of Code § 18.2-374.3, the rationale of our opinion upholding the conviction was potentially applicable to any act of sexual solicitation under the general scheme of that statute.”
Adam Toghill v. Harold Clarke, 877 F.3d 547 (4th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 8× “§ 2254 (d), in which he challenges his state court conviction for computer solicitation of acts of sodomy from a minor under the age of 15, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3 (0(3) (2007). He argues that his conviction violates his substantive due process rights under…”
Brooker v. Commonwealth, 587 S.E.2d 732 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “” He also asked, “Are you going to lose your virginity to me?” ANALYSIS Appellant admits that he made the communications with “Kim” over the internet.”
Spiker v. Commonwealth, 711 S.E.2d 228 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 16× “(appellant), appeals from his jury trial convictions for five counts of computer solicitation of a minor in violation of Code § 18.2-374.3. On appeal, he contends only that the trial court erroneously concluded venue was proper in Louisa County and does not challenge the…”
Velazquez v. Commonwealth, 791 S.E.2d 556 (Va. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Facts and Proceedings On October 30, 2014, in the Circuit Court of the City of Staunton ("trial court"), German Cortes Velazquez ("Velazquez") pleaded guilty to the charge of computer solicitation of a child in violation of Code § 18.2-374.3. During the October 30 hearing,…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(0) — 2 cases
Grafmuller v. Commonwealth, 698 S.E.2d 276 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“Michael Grafmuller (appellant) pled guilty via an Alford plea 1 to violating Code § 18.2-374.3, 2 use of a communication system to solicit, with lascivious intent, a person he knows or has reason to believe is under the age of fifteen.”
Adam Toghill v. Harold Clarke, 877 F.3d 547 (4th Cir. 2017).
“§ 2254 (d), in which he challenges his state court conviction for computer solicitation of acts of sodomy from a minor under the age of 15, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3 (0(3) (2007). He argues that his conviction violates his substantive due process rights under…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(A) — 2 cases
Hix v. Com., 619 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 2005).
“2-370 (the "attempted indecent liberties statute"), and the use of a computer to solicit a minor, Code § 18.2-374.3 (the "communications statute").”
Spiker v. Commonwealth, 711 S.E.2d 228 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“(appellant), appeals from his jury trial convictions for five counts of computer solicitation of a minor in violation of Code § 18.2-374.3. On appeal, he contends only that the trial court erroneously concluded venue was proper in Louisa County and does not challenge the…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(B) — 22 cases
Dietz v. Commonwealth, 804 S.E.2d 309 (Va. 2017).
“McCLANAHAN **126 The circuit court found Kimberlee Dietz, an elementary school teacher, guilty under Code § 18.2-374.3(B) 1 of the crime of using a cell phone for "purposes of procuring or promoting" one of her **127 11-year-old students for activity that would violate *311 Code…”
Podracky v. Commonwealth, 662 S.E.2d 81 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“The defendant was convicted of violating Code § 18.2-374.3 (the indictment did not specify the subsection); he was also convicted of an attempted violation of Code § 18.”
Timothy Ducharme v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 830 S.E.2d 924 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
“testified at trial that a 1 The indictment and the court’s orders stated that appellant was charged and convicted under Code § 18.2-374.3, but in response to defense counsel’s query at the beginning of trial, the prosecutor said that he was proceeding under subsection B of the…”
Colbert v. Commonwealth, 624 S.E.2d 108 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
“2-366, or clause (iv) of subsection B of § 18.2-374.3;.... (Emphasis in original.) Colbert points to the prefatory language in this subsection — “[w]here the victim is a minor” — in support of his contention that he is not subject to the Act’s offender registration requirement.”
Brooker v. Commonwealth, 587 S.E.2d 732 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“” He also asked, “Are you going to lose your virginity to me?” ANALYSIS Appellant admits that he made the communications with “Kim” over the internet.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(B)(i) — 2 cases
Colbert v. Commonwealth, 624 S.E.2d 108 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
“2-366, or clause (iv) of subsection B of § 18.2-374.3;.... (Emphasis in original.) Colbert points to the prefatory language in this subsection — “[w]here the victim is a minor” — in support of his contention that he is not subject to the Act’s offender registration requirement.”
Brooker v. Commonwealth, 587 S.E.2d 732 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“” He also asked, “Are you going to lose your virginity to me?” ANALYSIS Appellant admits that he made the communications with “Kim” over the internet.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(B)(iv) — 2 cases
Colbert v. Commonwealth, 624 S.E.2d 108 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
“2-366, or clause (iv) of subsection B of § 18.2-374.3;.... (Emphasis in original.) Colbert points to the prefatory language in this subsection — “[w]here the victim is a minor” — in support of his contention that he is not subject to the Act’s offender registration requirement.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(C) — 30 cases
Grafmuller v. Commonwealth, 698 S.E.2d 276 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“Michael Grafmuller (appellant) pled guilty via an Alford plea 1 to violating Code § 18.2-374.3, 2 use of a communication system to solicit, with lascivious intent, a person he knows or has reason to believe is under the age of fifteen.”
Major Lance Hillman v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 811 S.E.2d 853 (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
“Major Lance Hillman (“appellant”) was found guilty of use of a computer to solicit a minor, in violation of Code § 18.2-374.3, and taking indecent liberties with a child, in violation of Code § 18.”
Timothy Ducharme v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 830 S.E.2d 924 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
“testified at trial that a 1 The indictment and the court’s orders stated that appellant was charged and convicted under Code § 18.2-374.3, but in response to defense counsel’s query at the beginning of trial, the prosecutor said that he was proceeding under subsection B of the…”
Commonwealth v. Murgia, 827 S.E.2d 377 (Va. 2019).
“Although Dietz involved the application of a different subsection of Code § 18.2-374.3, the rationale of our opinion upholding the conviction was potentially applicable to any act of sexual solicitation under the general scheme of that statute.”
Adam Toghill v. Harold Clarke, 877 F.3d 547 (4th Cir. 2017).
“§ 2254 (d), in which he challenges his state court conviction for computer solicitation of acts of sodomy from a minor under the age of 15, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3 (0(3) (2007). He argues that his conviction violates his substantive due process rights under…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(C)(1) — 5 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(C)(2) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(C)(3) — 4 cases
Adam Toghill v. Harold Clarke, 877 F.3d 547 (4th Cir. 2017).
“§ 2254 (d), in which he challenges his state court conviction for computer solicitation of acts of sodomy from a minor under the age of 15, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3 (0(3) (2007). He argues that his conviction violates his substantive due process rights under…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(D) — 11 cases
Commonwealth v. Murgia, 827 S.E.2d 377 (Va. 2019).
“Although Dietz involved the application of a different subsection of Code § 18.2-374.3, the rationale of our opinion upholding the conviction was potentially applicable to any act of sexual solicitation under the general scheme of that statute.”
Timothy Ducharme v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 830 S.E.2d 924 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
“testified at trial that a 1 The indictment and the court’s orders stated that appellant was charged and convicted under Code § 18.2-374.3, but in response to defense counsel’s query at the beginning of trial, the prosecutor said that he was proceeding under subsection B of the…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(E) — 2 cases
Timothy Ducharme v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 830 S.E.2d 924 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
“testified at trial that a 1 The indictment and the court’s orders stated that appellant was charged and convicted under Code § 18.2-374.3, but in response to defense counsel’s query at the beginning of trial, the prosecutor said that he was proceeding under subsection B of the…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(c) — 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.