Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 5. Crimes Against Property » Article 1. Arson and Related Crimes
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-81 (2026)

Burning or destroying personal property, standing grain, etc

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If any person maliciously, or with intent to defraud an insurance company or other person, set fire to or burn or destroy by any explosive device or substance, or cause to be burned, or destroyed by any explosive device or substance, or aid, counsel, or procure the burning or destroying by any explosive device or substance, of any personal property, standing grain or other crop, he shall, if the thing burnt or destroyed be of the value of $1,000 or more, be guilty of a Class 4 felony; and if the thing burnt or destroyed be of less value, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Code 1950, §§ 18.1-79, 18.1-85; 1960, c. 358; 1972, c. 53; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1981, c. 197; 2018, cc. 764, 765; 2020, cc. 89, 401.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1978–2019 · leading case: Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 581 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 581 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 28× “2-77, and two counts of arson of personal property, in violation of Code § 18.2-81. On October 16, 2001, Schwartz was tried on these charges, along with a charge of misdemeanor unlawful entry, in violation of Code § 18.”
Hamm v. Commonwealth, 428 S.E.2d 517 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 26× “Royce Leon Hamm was convicted by a jury of maliciously burning an automobile in violation of Code § 18.2-81 and of conspiring to maliciously bum the vehicle.”
Charles Stanard Severance v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 799 S.E.2d 329 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “Therefore, the issue in Andrews was whether two murders, commit *653 ted concurrently, as part of the same act or transaction, could result in convictions and capital murder sentences pursuant to both Code § 18.2-81(7) and (8). Id. Appellant’s case differs significantly from…”
Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 594 S.E.2d 925 (Va. 2004). · cites it 7× “In one indictment, defendant was charged with malicious burning of an occupied dwelling, in violation of Code § 18.2-77. In two separate indictments, he was charged with malicious burning of personal property, the pickup truck and the Explorer, in violation of Code § 18.”
Cook v. Commonwealth, 309 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 1983). · cites it 4× “2-77) and of arson of personal property with intent to defraud an insurance company (Code § 18.2-81). The sole issue presented by his appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.”
Terra Nyree Hines v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 721 S.E.2d 792 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “2d 925, 927 (2004) (recognizing that a “literal construction of [Code § 18.2-81] would improperly yield an absurd result” because it “‘could be construed as permitting a separate arson prosecution for every item destroyed in a home or car’” (quoting Schwartz v.”
Payne v. Commonwealth, 509 S.E.2d 293 (Va. 1999). · cites it 2× “Likewise, in the Parham case, Payne, "in the same act or transaction," violated "two distinct statutory provisions" of subsection 5 of Code § 18.2-81; i.e., the killing of Parham in the commission of attempted rape and the killing of Parham in the commission of object sexual…”
United States v. Craig, 236 F. App'x 863 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “On appeal, Craig contends that the district court erred in determining that his Virginia conviction for burning a motor vehicle with intent to defraud, pursuant to Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-81 (Michie 2004), 1 qualified as “arson” for the purposes of § 924(e).”
United States v. Bryshun Furlow, 928 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2019). “2007) (ruling that conviction under Virginia arson statute, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-81 , was generic arson conviction); United States v.”
Michael Sean Green v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 815 S.E.2d 821 (Va. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” The trial court further conditioned that “[u]pon the defendant’s release from confinement, he is to be placed on active supervised probation under the Probation Officer of this [c]ourt for the term of suspension for a period of time deemed appropriate by the [c]ourt.”
Poole v. Pass, 351 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2005). · cites it 3× “It follows that if an officer has probable cause to arrest a person for a minor offense, if the person is then detained for a period of time, there is no constitutional violation.”
Underwood v. Commonwealth, 243 S.E.2d 231 (Va. 1978). · cites it 2× “After a jury trial, Robert Clay Underwood (Underwood or defendant) was convicted of feloniously and maliciously burning or destroying personal property of the value of $100 or more in violation of Code § 18.2-81. The jury fixed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-81(7) — 1 case
Charles Stanard Severance v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 799 S.E.2d 329 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). “Therefore, the issue in Andrews was whether two murders, commit *653 ted concurrently, as part of the same act or transaction, could result in convictions and capital murder sentences pursuant to both Code § 18.2-81(7) and (8). Id. Appellant’s case differs significantly from…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-81(8) — 1 case
Charles Stanard Severance v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 799 S.E.2d 329 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). “Therefore, the issue in Andrews was whether two murders, commit *653 ted concurrently, as part of the same act or transaction, could result in convictions and capital murder sentences pursuant to both Code § 18.2-81(7) and (8). Id. Appellant’s case differs significantly from…”
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.