Prosecution for offenses committed wholly or in part without and made punishable within this Commonwealth may be in any county or city in which the offender is found or to which he is sent by any judge or court; and if any person shall commit larceny or embezzlement beyond the jurisdiction of this Commonwealth and bring the stolen property into the same he shall be liable to prosecution and punishment for larceny or embezzlement in any county or city into which he shall have taken the property as if the same had been wholly committed therein; and if any person shall commit larceny or embezzlement within this Commonwealth and take the stolen property into any county or city other than the county or city within which the same was committed he shall be liable to prosecution and punishment for such larceny or embezzlement in any such county or city into which he shall have taken the property as if the same had been wholly committed therein; provided, that if any person shall commit embezzlement within this Commonwealth he shall be liable as aforesaid or to prosecution and punishment for his offense in the county or city in which he was legally obligated to deliver the embezzled funds or property.
Code 1950, § 19.1-220; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1977, c. 216.
Notes of Decisions
Gerald, T. v. Commonwealth, 813 S.E.2d 722 (Va. 2018).
· cites it 2× “2-250(B) (providing for "jurisdiction of authorities" of Chesterfield County and Henrico County extending one mile beyond corporate limits into City of Richmond); see also Code § 19.2-245 (providing for venue where the offender is found or where stolen property has been taken in…”
Nelson v. Commonwealth, 403 S.E.2d 384 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 6× “The Commonwealth further contends that Code § 19.2-245 establishes Prince William County as an appropriate venue for the prosecution.”
Kelso v. Com., 710 S.E.2d 470 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 2× “[4] The General Assembly codified this holding in 1960 when it amended the predecessor to Code § 19.2-245, former Code § 19.2-220. [5] Kelso did not assign error to the Court of Appeals' refusal to consider the issue through the application of the ends of justice provision of…”
Spitzer v. Commonwealth, 353 S.E.2d 711 (Va. 1987).
· cites it 4× “” He refers to Code § 19.2-245 which reads, in part, as follows: Prosecution for offenses committed wholly or in part without and made punishable within this State may be in any county or city in which the offender is found or to which he is sent by any judge or court; and if…”
Moreno v. Baskerville, 452 S.E.2d 653 (Va. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, the crime of distribution of drugs is not a continuing offense in the sense that crimes like larceny are continuing *20 offenses; thus Code § 19.2-245 (specifying venue of continuing offenses committed wholly or in part without and made punishable within the…”
Davis v. Commonwealth, 419 S.E.2d 285 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-245. Accordingly, the Commonwealth must prove some actual connection between the accused’s possession or receipt of the property and the jurisdiction of the trial court in which the accused is prosecuted.”
Keselica v. Commonwealth, 480 S.E.2d 756 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “provided, that if any person shall commit embezzlement within this Commonwealth he shall be liable as aforesaid or to prosecution and punishment for his offense in the county or city in which he was legally obligated to deliver the embezzled funds or property.”
Pamela Ruth Hatfield v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “She argues, though, Code § 19.2-245 1 allowed the Commonwealth to prosecute her wholly in Russell County for the embezzlement at both clinics because she took the embezzled funds from Tazewell County into Russell County.”
Alan Michael Jackson v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-245 states - 3 - in pertinent part, "if any person shall commit embezzlement within this Commonwealth he shall be liable as aforesaid or to prosecution and punishment for his offense in the county or city in which he was legally obligated to deliver the embezzled…”
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.