Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 9. Crimes Against Peace and Order » Article 5. Activities Tending to Cause Violence
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-423 (2026)

Burning cross on property of another or public place with intent to intimidate; penalty; prima facie evidence of intent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.

Code 1950, §§ 18.1-365 through 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 350; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1983, c. 337.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case: Black v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 738 (Va. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Black v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 738 (Va. 2001). · cites it 152× “LEMONS, In these appeals, we consider whether Code § 18.2-423, which prohibits the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, impermissibly infringes upon constitutionally protected speech.”
Elliott v. Commonwealth, 593 S.E.2d 263 (Va. 2004). · cites it 40× “On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, we consider the proper construction of the prima facie evidence provision of Code § 18.2-423 and the severability of the provision from the core provisions of the statute.”
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). · cites it 5× “Va. Code Ann. §18.2-423 (1996). We conclude that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any *348 cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to…”
Jack Eugene Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 792 S.E.2d 299 (Va. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “2, Virginia’s noose statute, is substantially similar to Virginia’s cross-burning statute, Code § 18.2-423, *58 that was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Virginia v.”
State v. Trey M., 383 P.3d 474 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 5× “at 347 (quoting Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-423 ), the “intent to intimidate” element was a state statutory requirement.”
Richard J. Elliott v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 535 S.E.2d 175 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 33× “Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, Jonathan O’Mara pled guilty to “Attempted Cross Burning” and “Conspiracy to Commit a Felony,” violations of Code §§ 18.2-423 and 18.2-22, respectively, expressly reserving the right to appeal a prior order of the trial court which…”
State v. Boettger, 450 P.3d 805 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 3× “" Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-423 (1996). The statute added that "[a]ny such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.”
Mitchem v. Counts, 523 S.E.2d 246 (Va. 2000). · cites it 8× “2-423, because the conduct also would violate the public policy against racial discrimination expressed in the VHRA. Similarly, under the employer's view, a Jewish employee could not maintain a common law action for wrongful termination if he were discharged for refusing to…”
People v. Lowery, 257 P.3d 72 (Cal. 2011). · cites it 7× “348 , quoting Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-423 .) The Virginia statute also provided that burning a cross would be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate.”
State v. Quinn, 691 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2005). · cites it 2× “2d at 545 (quoting Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-423 (Michie 1996)). The trial court gave the jury the following instruction: "`[T]he burning of a cross, by itself, is sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent.”
Kansas v. Boettger, 140 S. Ct. 1956 (2020). “The state statute in Black required "intent to intimidate," Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-423 (1996), so the Court did not decide whether such intent was required to make the law comport with the First Amendment, Elonis, supra, at 765, 135 S.”
State v. Schaler, 169 Wash. 2d 274 (Wash. 2010). “at 348 (emphasis added) (quoting Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-423 ). The Court noted at length that the type of intimidation likely to accompany a cross burning was that of bodily harm or death.”
Show all 19 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.