If any person maliciously, or with intent to defraud an insurance company or other person, burn, or by the use of any explosive device or substance, maliciously destroy, in whole or in part, or cause to be burned or destroyed, or aid, counsel or procure the burning or destruction of any building, bridge, lock, dam or other structure, whether the property of himself or of another, at a time when any person is therein or thereon, the burning or destruction whereof is not punishable under any other section of this chapter, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony. If he commits such offense at a time when no person is in such building, or other structure, and such building, or other structure, with the property therein, be of the value of $1,000 or more, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, and if it and the property therein be of less value, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Code 1950, §§ 18.1-80, 18.1-81, 18.1-85; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1981, c. 197; 2018, cc. 764, 765; 2020, cc. 89, 401.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case:
Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 581 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 581 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “2-79 (addressing the burning or destruction of a meeting house); Code § 18.2-80 (addressing the burning or destruction of structures not punishable under any other code section relating to crimes against property); Code § 18.”
Christopher Eugene Wilson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 781 S.E.2d 754 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “Appellant argues 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 Ann. § 18.2-79.” Specifically, he asserts that the…”
Carbaugh v. Commonwealth, 449 S.E.2d 264 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “2-95, and (4) four years in prison for arson, Code § 18.2-80. The sentencing judge suspended all of the larceny sentence and two years of the arson sentence and sentenced Carbaugh to consecutive terms of imprisonment totalling five years.”
Towler v. Commonwealth, 718 S.E.2d 463 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“2-79 or § 18.2-80, or if any person commits any of the acts mentioned in § 18.”
United States v. Bryant, 237 F. Supp. 3d 379 (W.D. Va. 2017).
· cites it 2× “2-79 or § 18.2-80, he shall be deemed guilty of statutory burglary, which offense shall be a Class 3 felony.”
Addison v. Commonwealth, 299 S.E.2d 521 (Va. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Norman Addison was convicted, pursuant to Code § 18.2-80, of aiding and abetting the arson of an unoccupied building.”
Hitt v. Commonwealth, 598 S.E.2d 783 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “2-79 or § 18.2-80, or if any person commits any of the acts mentioned in § 18.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 531 S.E.2d 619 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“2-79 or § 18.2-80, he shall be *93 deemed guilty of statutory burglary, which offense shall be a Class 3 felony.”
Davis v. Commonwealth, 427 S.E.2d 441 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Code § 18.2-80 (emphasis added). Had the legislature intended, in Code § 18.”
Bruce Eric Anderson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0220222 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2023).
· cites it 28× “1 At the time of the offense, Code § 18.2-80 made it a “Class 4 felony” “[i]f [the defendant] commits such offense at a time when no person is in such building, or other structure, and such building, or other structure, with the property therein, be of the value of $500 or more.”
Phillystene Tucker Jefferson v. Commonwealth, No. 2706982 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2000).
· cites it 6× “Phillystene Tucker Jefferson appeals her conviction in a bench trial for malicious burning of a structure in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-80. Jefferson claims that the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction.”
United States v. Dooley, 228 F. Supp. 3d 733 (W.D. Va. 2017).
· cites it 2× “2-79 or § 18.2-80, he shall be deemed guilty of statutory burglary, which offense shall be a Class 3 felony.”
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.