The judge of each circuit court shall fix a day of his court when the trial of criminal cases will commence, and may make such general or special order in reference thereto, and to the summoning of witnesses, as may seem proper, but all criminal cases shall be disposed of before civil cases, unless the court shall direct otherwise.
When an indictment is found against a person for felony or when an appeal has been perfected from the conviction of a misdemeanor or traffic infraction, the accused, if in custody, or if he appear according to his recognizance, may be tried at the same term and shall be tried within the time limits fixed in § 19.2-243; provided that no trial shall be held on the first day of the term unless it be with consent of the attorney for the Commonwealth and the accused and his attorney.
Code 1950, §§ 19.1-188 through 19.1-190; 1960, c. 366; 1972, c. 705; 1975, c. 495; 1977, c. 585; 1978, c. 410.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case:
Baity v. Commonwealth, 431 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
Baity v. Commonwealth, 431 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 16× “"The defendant's right to a speedy trial is one accorded him under the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution and under article I, section 8 of the Virginia Constitution.”
Brown v. Commonwealth, 702 S.E.2d 582 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the prosecution against him, maintaining the Commonwealth failed to bring the case to trial within the time limits prescribed by Code §§ 19.2-241 and - 243. Finding no error, we affirm appellant’s conviction.”
Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 532 S.E.2d 899 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 12× “Code § 19.2-241 requires that "[t]he judge of each circuit court shall fix a day of his court when the trial of criminal cases will commence" and that the accused "shall be tried within the time limits fixed in § 19.”
Stephens v. Commonwealth, 301 S.E.2d 22 (Va. 1983).
· cites it 6× “Code §§ 19.2-241 and 19.2-243. On October 19, 1980, Ayer’s Sandwich Shop, located in Martinsville, was burglarized, and various articles of personal property were stolen therefrom.”
Wright v. Commonwealth, 667 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “2-251 ("A circuit court may, on motion of the accused or the Commonwealth, for good cause, order the venue for the trial of a criminal case.”
Heath v. Commonwealth, 526 S.E.2d 798 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 8× “Code § 19.2-241 provides that "[t]he judge of each circuit court shall fix a day of his court when the trial of criminal cases will commence, and may make such general or special order in reference thereto.”
Shaishav Shah v. Manali Shah, 829 S.E.2d 586 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “2-241] contemplates an orderly procedure for setting criminal cases and expressly places the control of that process under the supervision of the trial court, not a party litigant. The policy expressed in this provision recognizes the role of the trial judge in insuring the…”
Howard v. Com., 706 S.E.2d 885 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Howard also argues that because Code §§ 19.2-241 and 19.2-243, have been held to be a legislative interpretation of what constitutes a speedy trial, Stephens, 225 Va.”
McCray v. Commonwealth, 605 S.E.2d 291 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-241 provides that "[t]he judge of each circuit court shall fix a day of his court when the trial of criminal cases will commence, and may make such general or special order in reference thereto.”
Howard v. Commonwealth, 686 S.E.2d 537 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “This right has been supplemented by Code §§ 19.2-241 and 19.2-243, held to be a legislative interpretation of what constitutes a speedy trial.”
Powell v. Commonwealth, 514 S.E.2d 785 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-241 provides that “[t]he judge of each circuit court shall fix a day of his court when the trial of criminal cases will commence, and may make such general or special order in reference thereto.”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 347 S.E.2d 146 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “” Apparently the Commonwealth’s Attorney determined unilaterally when the case was set for trial.”
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.