If any person maliciously burns, or by the use of any explosive device or substance, maliciously destroys, in whole or in part, or causes to be burned or destroyed, or aids, counsels, or procures the burning or destroying, of any meeting house, courthouse, townhouse, institution of higher education, academy, schoolhouse, or other building erected for public use except an asylum, hotel, jail, prison or church or building owned or leased by a church that is immediately adjacent to a church, or any banking house, warehouse, storehouse, manufactory, mill, or other house, whether the property of himself or of another person, not usually occupied by persons lodging therein at night, at a time when any person is therein, or if he maliciously sets fire to anything, or causes to be set on fire, or aids, counsels, or procures the setting on fire of anything, by the burning whereof any building mentioned in this section is burned, at a time when any person is therein, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony. If such offense is committed when no person is in such building mentioned in this section, the offender shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
Code 1950, § 18.1-78; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1997, c. 832.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case:
Hancock v. Commonwealth, 407 S.E.2d 301 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
Hancock v. Commonwealth, 407 S.E.2d 301 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 28× “He was also found guilty of arson, Code § 18.2-79, and three counts of attempted capital murder by arson.”
Christopher Eugene Wilson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 781 S.E.2d 754 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 29× “1 Appellant challenges his conviction for attempted arson by arguing that “the evidence presented at trial was insufficient, as a matter of law, for the trial court to establish that the structure involved in the case met the definition of any of the listed structures in Va.Code…”
Bell v. Commonwealth, 399 S.E.2d 450 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “In a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Kevin Winzell Bell was convicted of arson, Code § 18.2-79, attempted capital murder, Code § 18.”
Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 581 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “2-77 (addressing the burning or destruction of a dwelling house); Code § 18.2-79 (addressing the burning or destruction of a meeting house); Code § 18.”
Marable v. Commonwealth, 500 S.E.2d 233 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “If the legislature had intended “unoccupied” to mean “when no person is in the building,” we concluded, it would have said so as it did when enacting Code §§ 18.2-79 and 18.2-80. See 16 Va.App.”
Knight v. Commonwealth, 300 S.E.2d 600 (Va. 1983).
“”) or § 18.2-79 (“meeting house, etc.”). Defendant misreads the language in § 18.”
Davis v. Commonwealth, 427 S.E.2d 441 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “” Code § 18.2-79 (emphasis added). Similarly, burning any other building or structure “at a time when no person is in such building’ ’ is a Class 4 felony, instead of a Class 3 felony, if otherwise.”
Wilson v. Dotson (W.D. Va. 2024).
· cites it 13× “As a result of that incident, Mr. Lamay told appellant, in “no uncertain terms,” that he could no longer come back onto the premises of the store.”
Commonwealth v. Carter, 93 Va. Cir. 129 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 2× “On February 26, 2015, the Defendant was arrested pursuant to a felony warrant and charged with a violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-79, alleging that the defendant did “maliciously burn or destroy by the use of explosives, or aid, counsel, or procure the burning or destruction of…”
Dontay Milsap v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“2-77, §18.2-79 or §18.2-80. Va. Code §18.2-91. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case at trial and again after the appellant presented his case, he made a motion to strike the evidence.”
Roberto Calderon v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Bailey took pictures of the charred locker, and the pictures were admitted into evidence at trial. The trial judge viewed the pictures and noted that the lockers had been damaged by the fire.”
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.