A. An accused shall be guilty of inanimate or animate object sexual penetration if he or she penetrates the labia majora or anus of a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, other than for a bona fide medical purpose, or causes such complaining witness to so penetrate his or her own body with an object or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in such acts with any other person or to penetrate, or to be penetrated by, an animal, 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. Inanimate or animate object sexual penetration is a felony punishable by confinement in the 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; 1982, c. 508; 1986, c. 516; 1988, c. 437; 1993, c. 549; 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
172
cases (
52 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
Wactor v. Commonwealth, 564 S.E.2d 160 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
Wactor v. Commonwealth, 564 S.E.2d 160 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “James Darren Wactor was convicted by a jury of object sexual vaginal penetration, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2. The circuit court sentenced the defendant to five years in prison in accordance with the jury’s verdict.”
Jett v. Commonwealth, 510 S.E.2d 747 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 24× “Roger Lee Jett (appellant) was convicted in a jury trial of object sexual penetration in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2 and sodomy in violation of Code § 18.”
Justo Mazariegos Campos v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 800 S.E.2d 174 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “2-370; and object sexual penetration, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2. Following trial in the Circuit Court of Halifax County (“trial court”), appellant was sentenced to twenty-nine years’ imprisonment.”
Jeffrey Dean Bondi v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 824 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “Jeffrey Dean Bondi (“appellant”) was convicted in a bench trial of object sexual penetration, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2(A)(2). The court sentenced him to thirty-five years of incarceration with twenty-five years suspended.”
Clark v. Commonwealth, 517 S.E.2d 260 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 8× “3, and object sexual penetration, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2, Samuel Dan Clark contends the evidence of intimidation was insufficient to sustain the convictions.”
Mohajer v. Commonwealth, 579 S.E.2d 359 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “3), and sexual battery (Code § 18.2-67.4), in that each offense requires proof of "force, threat, or intimidation" or "mental incapacity" or "physical helplessness.”
Bower v. Commonwealth, 551 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 22× “William Patrick Bower (Bower) was convicted by the Roanoke County Circuit Court of animate object sexual penetration, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2, and of taking indecent liberties with a child by a person in a custodial relationship, in violation of Code § 18.”
Commonwealth v. Bower, 563 S.E.2d 736 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 6× “The Court of Appeals reversed William Patrick Bower’s conviction under Code § 18.2-67.2 of animate object sexual penetration of his thirteen-year-old daughter, holding that there was insufficient evidence that Bower perpetrated the crime through intimidation.”
Marshall v. Commonwealth, 496 S.E.2d 120 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “By convicting appellant of attempted object sexual penetration, the trial court implicitly found that the only reasonable hypotheses flowing from the evidence were (1) that the injuries to Tyler’s anus occurred while he was in appellant’s care rather than while undergoing…”
Jett v. Commonwealth, 501 S.E.2d 457 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 20× “Roger Lee Jett (appellant) was convicted in a jury trial of object sexual penetration in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2 and sodomy in violation of Code § 18.”
Bell v. Commonwealth, 468 S.E.2d 114 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “Bell appeals, contending (1) the conviction for abduction with intent to defile should have been merged with the conviction for animate object sexual penetration; (2) the term “animate *96 object sexual penetration” in Code § 18.2-67.2 excludes digital penetration of the vagina;…”
Haas v. Trammell (In Re Trammell), 388 B.R. 182 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2008).
· cites it 7× “1 (child abuse and neglect), Va.Code § 18.2-67.2 (object sexual penetration), and Va.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.2(0) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.2(1) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.2(A) — 19 cases
Wactor v. Commonwealth, 564 S.E.2d 160 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
“James Darren Wactor was convicted by a jury of object sexual vaginal penetration, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2. The circuit court sentenced the defendant to five years in prison in accordance with the jury’s verdict.”
Clark v. Commonwealth, 517 S.E.2d 260 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
“3, and object sexual penetration, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2, Samuel Dan Clark contends the evidence of intimidation was insufficient to sustain the convictions.”
Marshall v. Commonwealth, 496 S.E.2d 120 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“By convicting appellant of attempted object sexual penetration, the trial court implicitly found that the only reasonable hypotheses flowing from the evidence were (1) that the injuries to Tyler’s anus occurred while he was in appellant’s care rather than while undergoing…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.2(A)(1) — 15 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.2(A)(2) — 17 cases
Jeffrey Dean Bondi v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 824 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
“Jeffrey Dean Bondi (“appellant”) was convicted in a bench trial of object sexual penetration, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2(A)(2). The court sentenced him to thirty-five years of incarceration with twenty-five years suspended.”
Bower v. Commonwealth, 551 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
“William Patrick Bower (Bower) was convicted by the Roanoke County Circuit Court of animate object sexual penetration, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.2, and of taking indecent liberties with a child by a person in a custodial relationship, in violation of Code § 18.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67.2(B)(2) — 3 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.