A. Prior to conducting any hearing on the issue of bail, release, or detention, the judicial officer shall, to the extent feasible, obtain the person's criminal history.
B. A person who is held in custody pending trial or hearing for an offense, civil or criminal contempt, or otherwise shall be admitted to bail by a judicial officer, unless there is probable cause to believe that:
1. He will not appear for trial or hearing or at such other time and place as may be directed; or
2. His liberty will constitute an unreasonable danger to himself, family or household members as defined in § 16.1-228, or the public.
C. In making a determination under subsection B, the judicial officer shall consider all relevant information, including (i) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (ii) whether a firearm is alleged to have been used in the commission of the offense; (iii) the weight of the evidence; (iv) the history of the accused or juvenile, including his family ties or involvement in employment, education, or medical, mental health, or substance abuse treatment; (v) his length of residence in, or other ties to, the community; (vi) his record of convictions; (vii) his appearance at court proceedings or flight to avoid prosecution or convictions for failure to appear at court proceedings; (viii) whether the person is likely to obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness, juror, victim, or family or household member as defined in § 16.1-228; (ix) any evidence the person provided indicating that such person (a) is currently pregnant, (b) has recently given birth, or (c) is currently nursing a child; (x) the person's current bond status for an unrelated arrest in any jurisdiction; and (xi) whether the person is on probation or parole.
D. A judicial officer who admits a person to bail who is charged with an act of violence as defined in § 19.2-297.1 shall notify the attorney for the Commonwealth for the jurisdiction in which such person's case is filed contemporaneously with such person's grant of bail or release. Notice to the attorney for the Commonwealth may be made by facsimile or other electronic means.
E. The judicial officer shall inform the person of his right to appeal from the order denying bail or fixing terms of bond or recognizance consistent with § 19.2-124.
F. If the judicial officer sets a secured bond and the person engages the services of a licensed bail bondsman, the magistrate executing recognizance for the accused shall provide the bondsman, upon request, with a copy of the person's Virginia criminal history record, if readily available, to be used by the bondsman only to determine appropriate reporting requirements to impose upon the accused upon his release. The bondsman shall pay a $15 fee payable to the state treasury to be credited to the Literary Fund, upon requesting the defendant's Virginia criminal history record issued pursuant to § 19.2-389. The bondsman shall review the record on the premises and promptly return the record to the magistrate after reviewing it.
1975, c. 495; 1978, c. 755; 1979, c. 649; 1987, c. 390; 1991, c. 581; 1993, c. 636; 1996, c. 973; 1997, cc. 6, 476; 1999, cc. 829, 846; 2000, c. 797; 2002, cc. 588, 623; 2004, cc. 308, 360, 406, 412, 461, 819, 954, 959; 2005, c. 132; 2006, c. 504; 2007, cc. 134, 386, 745, 923; 2008, c. 596; 2010, c. 862; 2011, cc. 445, 450, 480; 2012, c. 467; 2015, c. 413; 2018, c. 71; 2020, c. 999; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, cc. 337, 344, 345, 523, 540; 2024, c. 243; 2025, c. 717; 2026, c. 123.
Notes of Decisions
Jud. Inquiry & Review Com'n of Va v. Taylor, 685 S.E.2d 51 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 18× “Furthermore, Judge Taylor asserts that Code § 19.2-120 distinguishes "bail" from "detention," and subsection E of that statute directs a judicial officer to "inform the person of his right to appeal from the order denying bail or fixing the terms of bond or recognizance," but…”
Dorsey v. Commonwealth, 526 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 12× “Our conclusion that revocation of appellant's bail was not punitive is buttressed by an analysis of Code § 19.2-120, which provides that a defendant has a statutory right to bail "unless there is probable cause to believe that: (1) He will not appear for trial or hearing or at…”
Fisher v. Commonwealth, 374 S.E.2d 46 (Va. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-120 provides that bail may be denied when there is probable cause to believe either (1) that the accused will not appear for trial, or (2) that his liberty will constitute an unreasonable danger to others.”
Charles Dean Lawson v. Commonwealth of VA, 561 S.E.2d 775 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “” The prosecutor also informed the judge that Lawson’s attorney contests whether Code § 19.2-120 “covers this particular type of event.”
Com. v. Smith, 709 S.E.2d 139 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 19.2-120. They also knew Smith was stopped only because he was a passenger in a car with a defective brake light and that they had not observed anything to lead them to believe he was presently involved in criminal activity or that he was armed and presently dangerous.”
Dowell v. Commonwealth, 367 S.E.2d 742 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Unlike Code § 19.2-120 which governs pre-conviction bail, Code § 19.”
Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana, 990 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 2013).
· cites it 2× “§ 15A-533 (trial court has discretion to deny bail to defendant charged with capital offense); Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120 (bail may be denied when probable cause exists that defendant will not appear for trial or poses risk to community).”
United States v. Jones, 36 F. Supp. 2d 304 (E.D. Va. 1999).
· cites it 4× “§ 3142 (e) (noting a “rebuttable presumption” against bond if “the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community”); with Va.Code Ann. §…”
Sheard v. Commonwealth, 403 S.E.2d 178 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Alberi and Detective Byrum would have impeached her credibility and were thus material to the issues on trial. Furthermore, she falsely denied having told them that Shields had told her that he intended death or injury to her and Detective Byrum, that he wanted her to assist him…”
Heacock v. Commonwealth, 321 S.E.2d 645 (Va. 1984).
· cites it 2× “” Code § 19.2-120. Once an accused is admitted to bail, a bond may be but is not necessarily required.”
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 60× “3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Devin Denny (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 49× “In this case, Denny was admitted to bail by the magistrate pursuant to Code § 19.2-120, the statute governing pretrial bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(A) — 17 cases
Jud. Inquiry & Review Com'n of Va v. Taylor, 685 S.E.2d 51 (Va. 2009).
“Furthermore, Judge Taylor asserts that Code § 19.2-120 distinguishes "bail" from "detention," and subsection E of that statute directs a judicial officer to "inform the person of his right to appeal from the order denying bail or fixing the terms of bond or recognizance," but…”
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(A)(1) — 3 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(A)(2) — 4 cases
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B) — 17 cases
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(1) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(2) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(4) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(i) — 6 cases
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(ii) — 3 cases
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(iii) — 1 case
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(iv) — 2 cases
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(vi) — 1 case
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(vii) — 1 case
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(B)(viii) — 1 case
Keith Billingsley, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“3 Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in applying a rebuttable presumption against bail because prior to the bail hearing, through legislation effective on July 1, 2021, Code § 19.2-120 was amended to abrogate any presumptions against bail.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(C) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(D) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(E) — 6 cases
Jud. Inquiry & Review Com'n of Va v. Taylor, 685 S.E.2d 51 (Va. 2009).
“Furthermore, Judge Taylor asserts that Code § 19.2-120 distinguishes "bail" from "detention," and subsection E of that statute directs a judicial officer to "inform the person of his right to appeal from the order denying bail or fixing the terms of bond or recognizance," but…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(E)(1) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(E)(2) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-120(E)(3) — 1 case
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.