Before or during the trial for an offense or attempted offense under this article, the judge of the court in which the case is pending, with the consent of the accused first obtained in open court, by an order of record, may direct that the deposition of the complaining witness be taken at a time and place designated in the order, and the judge may adjourn the taking thereof to such other time and places as he may deem necessary. Such deposition shall be taken before a judge of a circuit court in the county or city in which the offense was committed or the trial is had, and the judge shall rule upon all questions of evidence, and otherwise control the taking of the same as though it were taken in open court. At the taking of such deposition the attorney for the Commonwealth, as well as the accused and his attorneys, shall be present and they shall have the same rights in regard to the examination of such witness as if he or she were testifying in open court. No other person shall be present unless expressly permitted by the judge. Such deposition shall be read to the jury at the time such witness might have testified if such deposition had not been taken, and shall be considered by them, and shall have the same force and effect as though such testimony had been given orally in court. The judge may, in like manner, direct other depositions of the complaining witness, in rebuttal or otherwise, which shall be taken and read in the manner and under the conditions herein prescribed as to the first deposition. The cost of taking such depositions shall be paid by the Commonwealth.
Code 1950, § 18.1-47; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15, 606; 1981, c. 397.
Notes of Decisions
Tharrington v. Commonwealth, 346 S.E.2d 337 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “…accused intentionally touches the complaining witness’s intimate parts or clothing covering such intimate parts.” Code § 18.2-67(10).”
State v. Bryant, 670 A.2d 776 (R.I. 1996).
“1994), Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67 .2A (Michie 1950 & Supp.”
Burns v. Com., 541 S.E.2d 872 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 2× “2-61, and forcible sodomy (anal intercourse) in violation of Code § 18.2-67. [1] At the conclusion of the penalty phase of a bifurcated trial, the jury recommended that Burns be sentenced to death on the capital murder conviction, finding that "there is a probability that…”
Duncan v. Lee, No. 7:20-cv-00554, 2020 WL 6875038 (W.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2020).
· cites it 2× “01-249 (6), incorporating definition of sexual abuse from Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67 .10—does not trigger the ten-year limitations period because it occurred before July 1, 2020.”
Trevor Dion Moody v. Commonwealth, No. 1395022 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2003).
· cites it 2× “The General Assembly also enacted Code § 18.2-67, which permits for the deposition, in certain circumstances, of a “complaining witness” in cases of both criminal sexual assault and attempted criminal sexual assault.”
Daniel Justin Rose v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0893231 (Va. Ct. App. July 23, 2024).
“1(B)(2) and 18.2-67.2(B)(2). By enacting the statutes, the General Assembly exercised its right to impose a specific criminal punishment—life imprisonment—for forcible sodomy and object sexual penetration only when the victim was under 13 years old and the defendant was over 18…”
William Dexter Lansberry v. Commonwealth of VA, No. 2296994 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2000).
· cites it 2× “Based upon the investigation, William Dexter Lansberry was indicted by a grand jury on two counts of oral sodomy, in violation of Code § 18.2-67, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, in violation of Code § 18.”
Commonwealth v. G. R. N., 22 Va. Cir. 134 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 2× “, a sixteen-year old, charging him with two counts of sodomy in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-67, and three counts of aggravated sexual battery in violation of Virginia Code § 18.”
Edward Eugene Cox v. Commonwealth, No. 1898002 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2002).
“" The Commonwealth moved that the instruction be modified to include those acts of "sexual abuse" set forth in Code § 18.2-67(6)(b), namely, where "[t]he accused forces the complaining witness to touch the accused's .”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67(10): 1 case
Tharrington v. Commonwealth, 346 S.E.2d 337 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
“…accused intentionally touches the complaining witness’s intimate parts or clothing covering such intimate parts.” Code § 18.2-67(10).”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67(6)(b): 1 case
Edward Eugene Cox v. Commonwealth, No. 1898002 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2002).
“" The Commonwealth moved that the instruction be modified to include those acts of "sexual abuse" set forth in Code § 18.2-67(6)(b), namely, where "[t]he accused forces the complaining witness to touch the accused's .”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-67(B)(2): 1 case
Daniel Justin Rose v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0893231 (Va. Ct. App. July 23, 2024).
“1(B)(2) and 18.2-67.2(B)(2). By enacting the statutes, the General Assembly exercised its right to impose a specific criminal punishment—life imprisonment—for forcible sodomy and object sexual penetration only when the victim was under 13 years old and the defendant was over 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.