A. 1. Any person who knowingly communicates, in a writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, including an email, a text message, or a message or post on any social media platform, a threat to kill or do bodily injury to a person, regardless of whether the person who is the object of the threat actually receives the threat, and the threat places such person who is the object of the threat, or any member of his family, in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member is guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, any person who violates this subsection with the intent to commit an act of terrorism as defined in § 18.2-46.4 is guilty of a Class 5 felony.
2. Any person who communicates a threat orally or in a writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, including an email, a text message, or a message or post on any social media platform, to kill or discharge a firearm within or (i) on the grounds or premises of any elementary, middle, or secondary school property; (ii) at any elementary, middle, or secondary school-sponsored event; or (iii) on a school bus to any person or persons, regardless of whether the person who is the object of the threat actually receives the threat, and the threat would place the person who is the object of the threat, or is included in the threat, in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily harm is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
3. Any person 18 years of age or older who communicates a threat in writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message such as an email, a text message, or a message or post on any social media platform, to another to kill or to do serious bodily injury to any other person and makes such threat with the intent to (i) intimidate a civilian population at large; (ii) influence the conduct or activities of a government, including the government of the United States, a state, or a locality, through intimidation; or (iii) compel the emergency evacuation, or avoidance, of any place of assembly, any building or other structure, or any means of mass transportation is guilty of a Class 5 felony. Any person younger than 18 years of age who commits such offense is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. Any person who orally makes a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to (i) any employee of any elementary, middle, or secondary school, while on a school bus, on school property, or at a school-sponsored activity or (ii) any health care provider as defined in § 8.01-581.1 who is engaged in the performance of his duties while on the premises of any facility rendering health care as defined in § 8.01-581.1, unless the health care provider is on the premises of any facility rendering health care as defined in § 8.1-581.1 or emergency medical care as a result of an emergency custody order pursuant to § 37.2-808, involuntary temporary detention order pursuant to § 37.2-809, involuntary hospitalization order pursuant to § 37.2-817, or emergency custody order of a conditionally released acquittee pursuant to § 19.2-182.9, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
C. A prosecution pursuant to this section may be in either the county, city, or town in which the communication was made or received.
Code 1950, § 18.1-257; 1960, c. 358; 1973, c. 118; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1994, c. 265; 1998, cc. 687, 788; 2001, cc. 644, 653; 2002, cc. 588, 623; 2019, c. 506; 2020, c. 1002; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, cc. 83, 84; 2022, c. 336; 2023, c. 200; 2025, c. 588.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
Holcomb v. Commonwealth, 709 S.E.2d 711 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
Holcomb v. Commonwealth, 709 S.E.2d 711 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 22× “The trial court found that appellant’s ongoing custody dispute involving his daughter created a “connection or [a] nexus” between his posts and Rollman’s “individual situation” such that the posts constituted “very veiled threats.”
Summerlin v. Commonwealth, 557 S.E.2d 731 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “In that case, Saunders was charged with writing and sending to another a letter that contained a threat to kill or do bodily injury to that person, in violation of Code § 18.2-60(A). Relying analogously on our use of the word “maliciously” in Perkins , Saunders contended malice…”
Keyes v. Commonwealth, 572 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 18× “At the time of Keyes’ offense, Code § 18.2-60 provided: If any person write or compose and also send or procure the sending of any letter, inscribed communication or electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, so written *300 or composed,…”
Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 255 S.E.2d 506 (Va. 1979).
· cites it 4× “2-279 and with sending “an inscribed communication containing a threat to kill or do bodily injury” in violation of Code § 18.2-60, John Henry Dowdy, Jr., was convicted by a jury of both charges and, by final judgment order entered May 16,1978, sentenced to the penitentiary for…”
Feminist Majority Found. v. Richard Hurley, 911 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2018).
“§ 875 (c) (prohibiting transmission through interstate commerce of threat to injure another); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60 (A)(1) (criminalizing electronic communication of threat to kill or injure another if threat recipient is placed "in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily…”
Clark v. Commonwealth, 676 S.E.2d 332 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “[11] In fact, her actions were likely and more appropriately punishable by law under Code § 18.2-60, which makes it a crime to "communicate[] a threat .”
Saunders v. Commonwealth, 523 S.E.2d 509 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 10× “Eric Donnell Saunders (defendant) was convicted by a jury for “writ[ing] or composting] and send[ing]” a letter to another “containing a threat to kill or do bodily injury” to such person, a violation of Code § 18.2-60(A). On appeal, he complains that the trial court erroneously…”
Roland Baldwin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 815 S.E.2d 809 (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Roland Baldwin pled guilty to one count of sending a written threat to kill or do bodily injury in violation of Code § 18.2-60. On appeal, Baldwin argues that the trial court allowed, and considered, improper testimony at sentencing and in the victim impact statement before…”
Kal Robert Molinet v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 779 S.E.2d 231 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Code § 18.2-60(A). To constitute obstruction of an officer in the performance of his duty, it is not necessary that there be an actual or technical assault upon the officer, but there must be acts *578 clearly indicating an intention on the part of the accused to prevent the…”
Bishop v. Commonwealth, 639 S.E.2d 683 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “On the obstruction of justice charge, Bishop’s counsel argued that the similarities between Code § 18.2-60(C)’s felony provision and § 18.”
DeJoseph Ricks, s/k/a DeJoseph L. Ricks v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 14× ““In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable 3 The trial court found Ricks in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation on two underlying felony convictions for bomb/burn…”
DeJoseph L. Ricks v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 14× ““In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable 3 The trial court found Ricks in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation on two underlying felony convictions for bomb/burn…”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60(A): 8 cases
Summerlin v. Commonwealth, 557 S.E.2d 731 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
“In that case, Saunders was charged with writing and sending to another a letter that contained a threat to kill or do bodily injury to that person, in violation of Code § 18.2-60(A). Relying analogously on our use of the word “maliciously” in Perkins , Saunders contended malice…”
Keyes v. Commonwealth, 572 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
“At the time of Keyes’ offense, Code § 18.2-60 provided: If any person write or compose and also send or procure the sending of any letter, inscribed communication or electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, so written *300 or composed,…”
Saunders v. Commonwealth, 523 S.E.2d 509 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“Eric Donnell Saunders (defendant) was convicted by a jury for “writ[ing] or composting] and send[ing]” a letter to another “containing a threat to kill or do bodily injury” to such person, a violation of Code § 18.2-60(A). On appeal, he complains that the trial court erroneously…”
Holcomb v. Commonwealth, 709 S.E.2d 711 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“The trial court found that appellant’s ongoing custody dispute involving his daughter created a “connection or [a] nexus” between his posts and Rollman’s “individual situation” such that the posts constituted “very veiled threats.”
Kal Robert Molinet v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 779 S.E.2d 231 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“Code § 18.2-60(A). To constitute obstruction of an officer in the performance of his duty, it is not necessary that there be an actual or technical assault upon the officer, but there must be acts *578 clearly indicating an intention on the part of the accused to prevent the…”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60(A)(1): 3 cases
Holcomb v. Commonwealth, 709 S.E.2d 711 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“The trial court found that appellant’s ongoing custody dispute involving his daughter created a “connection or [a] nexus” between his posts and Rollman’s “individual situation” such that the posts constituted “very veiled threats.”
DeJoseph Ricks, s/k/a DeJoseph L. Ricks v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
““In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable 3 The trial court found Ricks in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation on two underlying felony convictions for bomb/burn…”
DeJoseph L. Ricks v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
““In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable 3 The trial court found Ricks in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation on two underlying felony convictions for bomb/burn…”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60(C): 1 case
Bishop v. Commonwealth, 639 S.E.2d 683 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
“On the obstruction of justice charge, Bishop’s counsel argued that the similarities between Code § 18.2-60(C)’s felony provision and § 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.