A. An accused shall be guilty of forcible sodomy if he or she engages in cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, or anal intercourse with a complaining witness whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in such acts with any other person, and
1. The complaining witness is less than 13 years of age; or
2. The act is accomplished against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person, or through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness.
B. Forcible sodomy is a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for life or for any term not less than five years; and in addition:
1. For a violation of subdivision A 1, where the offender is more than three years older than the victim, if done in the commission of, or as part of the same course of conduct as, or as part of a common scheme or plan as a violation of (i) subsection A of § 18.2-47 or § 18.2-48, (ii) § 18.2-89, 18.2-90, or 18.2-91, or (iii) § 18.2-51.2, the punishment shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of 25 years; or
2. For a violation of subdivision A 1 where it is alleged in the indictment that the offender was 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense, the punishment shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement for life.
The mandatory minimum terms of confinement prescribed for violations of this section shall be served consecutively with any other sentence. If the term of confinement imposed for any violation of subdivision A 1, where the offender is more than three years older than the victim, is for a term less than life imprisonment, the judge shall impose, in addition to any active sentence, a suspended sentence of no less than 40 years. This suspended sentence shall be suspended for the remainder of the defendant's life, subject to revocation by the court.
In any case deemed appropriate by the court, all or part of any sentence imposed for a violation under this section against a spouse may be suspended upon the defendant's completion of counseling or therapy, if not already provided, in the manner prescribed under § 19.2-218.1 if, after consideration of the views of the complaining witness and such other evidence as may be relevant, the court finds such action will promote maintenance of the family unit and will be in the best interest of the complaining witness.
C. Upon a finding of guilt under this section, when a spouse is the complaining witness in any case tried by the court without a jury, the court, without entering a judgment of guilt, upon motion of the defendant who has not previously had a proceeding against him for violation of this section dismissed pursuant to this subsection and with the consent of the complaining witness and the attorney for the Commonwealth, may defer further proceedings and place the defendant on probation pending completion of counseling or therapy, if not already provided, in the manner prescribed under § 19.2-218.1. If the defendant fails to so complete such counseling or therapy, the court may make final disposition of the case and proceed as otherwise provided. If such counseling is completed as prescribed under § 19.2-218.1, the court may discharge the defendant and dismiss the proceedings against him if, after consideration of the views of the complaining witness and such other evidence as may be relevant, the court finds such action will promote maintenance of the family unit and be in the best interest of the complaining witness.
1981, c. 397; 1986, c. 516; 1994, cc. 772, 794; 1999, c. 367; 2005, c. 631; 2006, cc. 853, 914; 2012, cc. 575, 605; 2013, cc. 761, 774.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
226
cases (
61 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Nelson v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 23 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
Nelson v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 23 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 21× “” The original indictment here alleged appellant “caused” the victim to commit sodomy in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1. 9 The indictment mentioned only two people, appellant and the victim.”
Cairns v. Commonwealth, 579 S.E.2d 340 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 14× “Robert Bruce Cairns (appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of three counts of forcible sodomy in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1, one count of rape in violation of Code § 18.”
Mohajer v. Commonwealth, 579 S.E.2d 359 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “See Code § 18.2-67.1. [3] We disagree. On review of a claim asserting the sufficiency of the evidence, "`this Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact.”
Billips v. Commonwealth, 630 S.E.2d 340 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 16× “2-29, and two counts of forcible sodomy, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1. Billips contends the trial judge erred at sentencing in (1) refusing to recuse himself after inappropriately receiving a sentencing verdict from the jury, (2) admitting the sentencing guidelines portion…”
Horton v. Commonwealth, 499 S.E.2d 258 (Va. 1998).
· cites it 10× “In these cases, we decide whether there is sufficient evidence of penetration to support the defendants’ convictions of forcible sodomy by engaging in cunnilingus in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1. Because the evidence in each case proves that the respective defendant penetrated…”
Jett v. Commonwealth, 510 S.E.2d 747 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 12× “2 and sodomy in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the object sexual penetration charge because the victim's testimony was legally insufficient to prove penetration.”
Manneh Vay v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 795 S.E.2d 495 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “2-61, sodomy in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1, and abduction with intent to defile in violation of Code § 18.”
Chaine v. Commonwealth, 436 S.E.2d 187 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 18× “2-61, forcible sodomy, Code § 18.2-67.1, taking indecent liberties with a child with whom he maintained a custodial relationship, Code § 18.”
Smith v. Com., 706 S.E.2d 889 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 4× “2-10, three counts of forcible sodomy, Code § 18.2-67.1, four counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, Code § 18.”
Gonzales v. Commonwealth, 611 S.E.2d 616 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “2-61 and forcible sodomy in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1, finding that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior crimes and that such error was not harmless.”
Wactor v. Commonwealth, 564 S.E.2d 160 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2-61), forcible sodomy (Code § 18.2-67.1), aggravated sexual battery (Code § 18.”
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 711 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 16× “(appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of forcible sodomy and animate object sexual penetration, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-67.1 and 18.2-67.2. 2 On appeal, appellant argues that the circuit court committed reversible error when it denied his motions (1) to return the…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1(0) — 1 case
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 711 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“(appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of forcible sodomy and animate object sexual penetration, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-67.1 and 18.2-67.2. 2 On appeal, appellant argues that the circuit court committed reversible error when it denied his motions (1) to return the…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1(1) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1(A) — 12 cases
Nelson v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 23 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“” The original indictment here alleged appellant “caused” the victim to commit sodomy in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1. 9 The indictment mentioned only two people, appellant and the victim.”
Cairns v. Commonwealth, 579 S.E.2d 340 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“Robert Bruce Cairns (appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of three counts of forcible sodomy in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1, one count of rape in violation of Code § 18.”
Chaine v. Commonwealth, 436 S.E.2d 187 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
“2-61, forcible sodomy, Code § 18.2-67.1, taking indecent liberties with a child with whom he maintained a custodial relationship, Code § 18.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1(A)(1) — 16 cases
Nelson v. Commonwealth, 589 S.E.2d 23 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“” The original indictment here alleged appellant “caused” the victim to commit sodomy in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1. 9 The indictment mentioned only two people, appellant and the victim.”
Chaine v. Commonwealth, 436 S.E.2d 187 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
“2-61, forcible sodomy, Code § 18.2-67.1, taking indecent liberties with a child with whom he maintained a custodial relationship, Code § 18.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1(A)(2) — 19 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1(B) — 6 cases
Billips v. Commonwealth, 630 S.E.2d 340 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
“2-29, and two counts of forcible sodomy, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1. Billips contends the trial judge erred at sentencing in (1) refusing to recuse himself after inappropriately receiving a sentencing verdict from the jury, (2) admitting the sentencing guidelines portion…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1(B)(2) — 7 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.1(C) — 1 case
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 711 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“(appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of forcible sodomy and animate object sexual penetration, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-67.1 and 18.2-67.2. 2 On appeal, appellant argues that the circuit court committed reversible error when it denied his motions (1) to return the…”
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.