Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-54 (2026)
Conviction of lesser offenses under certain indictments
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
On any indictment for maliciously shooting, stabbing, cutting or wounding a person or by any means causing him bodily injury, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill him, or of causing bodily injury by means of any acid, lye or other caustic substance or agent, the jury or the court trying the case without a jury may find the accused not guilty of the offense charged but guilty of unlawfully doing such act with the intent aforesaid, or of assault and battery if the evidence warrants.
Code 1950, § 19.1-251; 1960, c. 366; 1975, cc. 14, 15.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Boone v. Commonwealth, 415 S.E.2d 250 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
Boone v. Commonwealth, 415 S.E.2d 250 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). “Trower denied any homosexual advances and testified that defendant attacked and robbed him without provocation.”
Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 557 S.E.2d 220 (Va. 2002). “But see Code § 18.2-54; Brown v. Commonwealth, 222 Va.”
Steven Joseph Blevins v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 762 S.E.2d 396 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). “, Code §§ 18.2-54 (unlawful wounding); 19.2-266.”
Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2009). “See Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-54 . Thus, Singh’s citations are inapposite.”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 237 S.E.2d 791 (Va. 1977). “Code § 18.2-54. But at the conclusion of the evidence the trial court narrowed the issue by granting without objection Instruction 10 which read as follows: “Under the indictments in this case charging the defendant with the wounding of William Louis Hawkes and Maggie Dagner, if…”
Shaun Steven Reed v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023). “2 The sentencing order incorrectly cites Code § 18.2-54 for the assault conviction, and therefore we remand this case to the trial court for correction of the clerical error.”
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.