Va. Code » Title 19.2. Criminal Procedure » Chapter 11. Proceedings on Question of Insanity
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-181 (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Repealed by Acts 1991, c. 427.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1979–2008 · leading case: Spruill v. Commonwealth, 271 S.E.2d 419 (Va. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spruill v. Commonwealth, 271 S.E.2d 419 (Va. 1980). · cites it 10× “2-177, *485 supra, or whether defendant should be found mentally incompetent and confined for treatment under Code § 19.2-181, supra. Accordingly, in the eighth paragraph, Dimitris outlines the procedure which could be used under the former statute.”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 28× “At all times applicable to the proceedings in the trial court former Code § 19.2-181 was in effect. 1 Upon the acquittal of a criminal defendant by reason of insanity or mental retardation existing when the offense was committed, the trial judge was required by former Code § 19.”
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). “1991) (insanity acquit-tee not entitled to release until he “prove[s] by a preponderance of the evidence that he is no longer dangerous to others”); Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-181 (3) (1990) (insanity acquittee not entitled to release until he proves “that he is not'insane or mentally…”
Miller v. Commonwealth, 422 S.E.2d 795 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “See Code § 19.2-181. Appellant argues that a jury unaware of the consequences to a defendant of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity will be unwilling to arrive at such a verdict.”
Brennan v. Blankenship, 472 F. Supp. 149 (W.D. Va. 1979). “1-239 (now § 19.2-181) provided that a defendant acquitted by reason of insanity or feeblemindedness must be examined by three psychiatric experts to determine his sanity and whether his release would be dangerous to himself or to the public.”
Antzes v. Commonwealth, 409 S.E.2d 172 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 28× “2-181(5), that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for hearings under paragraphs two through four is necessary because these subsequent hearings are declared in paragraph three to be civil proceedings. Regardless of which interpretation of the statute is correct, the…”
Buffalo v. Comm'r of the Dept. of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 871 F. Supp. 894 (W.D. Va. 1994). · cites it 7× “) While institutionalized, Buffalo was reviewed and recommitted at regular intervals pursuant to former Virginia Code § 19.2-181, and reports of Buffalo’s mental condition were regularly sent to the circuit court.”
Michael Edward Jones Holmes v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0905073 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008). · cites it 2× “2d 419, 426 (1980), the Court upheld a trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction that would have detailed the administrative procedures to be followed by the court and the Commissioner of Mental Health and Mental Retardation under Code § 19.2-181 (now Code § 19.2-182.2)…”
Commonwealth v. Barkley, 39 Va. Cir. 77 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “See Va. Code § 19.2-181 (1975). In Mr. Barkley’s case, the Director of Southwestern State Hospital requested release on May 22, 1975, and January 6, 1982, but the Court did not hold review hearings because Mr.”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-181(1): 2 cases
Williams v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). “At all times applicable to the proceedings in the trial court former Code § 19.2-181 was in effect. 1 Upon the acquittal of a criminal defendant by reason of insanity or mental retardation existing when the offense was committed, the trial judge was required by former Code § 19.”
Antzes v. Commonwealth, 409 S.E.2d 172 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “2-181(5), that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for hearings under paragraphs two through four is necessary because these subsequent hearings are declared in paragraph three to be civil proceedings. Regardless of which interpretation of the statute is correct, the…”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-181(2): 2 cases
Williams v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). “At all times applicable to the proceedings in the trial court former Code § 19.2-181 was in effect. 1 Upon the acquittal of a criminal defendant by reason of insanity or mental retardation existing when the offense was committed, the trial judge was required by former Code § 19.”
Antzes v. Commonwealth, 409 S.E.2d 172 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “2-181(5), that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for hearings under paragraphs two through four is necessary because these subsequent hearings are declared in paragraph three to be civil proceedings. Regardless of which interpretation of the statute is correct, the…”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-181(3): 1 case
Williams v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). “At all times applicable to the proceedings in the trial court former Code § 19.2-181 was in effect. 1 Upon the acquittal of a criminal defendant by reason of insanity or mental retardation existing when the offense was committed, the trial judge was required by former Code § 19.”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-181(4): 2 cases
Williams v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). “At all times applicable to the proceedings in the trial court former Code § 19.2-181 was in effect. 1 Upon the acquittal of a criminal defendant by reason of insanity or mental retardation existing when the offense was committed, the trial judge was required by former Code § 19.”
Antzes v. Commonwealth, 409 S.E.2d 172 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “2-181(5), that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for hearings under paragraphs two through four is necessary because these subsequent hearings are declared in paragraph three to be civil proceedings. Regardless of which interpretation of the statute is correct, the…”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-181(5): 1 case
Antzes v. Commonwealth, 409 S.E.2d 172 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “2-181(5), that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for hearings under paragraphs two through four is necessary because these subsequent hearings are declared in paragraph three to be civil proceedings. Regardless of which interpretation of the statute is correct, the…”
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.