Va. Code » Title 19.2. Criminal Procedure » Chapter 15. Trial and Its Incidents » Article 4. Trial by Jury
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264 (2026)

When jury need not be kept together in felony case; sufficient compliance with requirement that jury be kept together

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

In any case of a felony the jury shall not be kept together unless the court otherwise directs. Whenever a jury is required to be kept together, it shall be deemed sufficient compliance although the court for good cause permits one or more of such jurors to be separated from the others; provided all such jurors, whether separated or not, be kept in charge of officers provided therefor.

Code 1950, §§ 8-208.31, 8-208.32; 1973, c. 439; 1975, c. 495.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1981–2009 · leading case: Roach v. Commonwealth, 468 S.E.2d 98 (Va. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roach v. Commonwealth, 468 S.E.2d 98 (Va. 1996). · cites it 8× “d) If the response to (c) includes statement that Commonwealth intends to prove the “vileness” factor as set out in Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264 .4C, to identify as many of the components of the factor, torture, depravity of mind, aggravated battery on which it intends to offer…”
Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 581 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “Specifically, Schwartz argues that the vehicle fires are lesser-included offenses of the residence fire, that the individual convictions are barred pursuant to "Code § 19.2-264," and that they are also barred under the single larceny doctrine.”
Fishback v. Commonwealth, 532 S.E.2d 629 (Va. 2000). · cites it 4× “2-264 to codify the effect of our decision in Yarbrough and in that same action directed "[t]hat the Virginia preme Court, in conjunction with the Virginia State Bar, investigate and recommend to the General Assembly on or before January 1, 2001, model jury instructions for…”
Remington v. Commonwealth, 551 S.E.2d 620 (Va. 2001). · cites it 2× “Addi *357 tionally, the defendant argues that the circuit court’s ruling violated Code § 19.2-264(B), this Court’s prior decisions, and the defendant’s constitutional rights to present mitigation evidence.”
Walker v. Commonwealth, 515 S.E.2d 565 (Va. 1999). · cites it 2× “The Commonwealth further stated that, if Walker was convicted of capital murder, it would seek the death penalty based on the aggravating factors of “vileness” and “future dangerousness.”
Pope v. Commonwealth, 360 S.E.2d 352 (Va. 1987). · cites it 2× “Motion for Sequestration Code § 19.2-264 provides that in felony cases “the jury shall not be kept together unless the court otherwise directs.”
Schmitt v. Commonwealth, 547 S.E.2d 186 (Va. 2000). · cites it 2× “We find no merit in Schmitt’s argument that the evidence of his “future dangerousness” was insufficient because his “society,” after receiving a sentence of life imprisonment for capital murder, would have been a “close custody” prison.”
Prieto v. Com., 682 S.E.2d 910 (Va. 2009). · cites it 2× “Hagen testified for the Commonwealth that Prieto was not mentally retarded within the meaning of Code § 19.2-264. 3:1.1(A). III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR WAIVED OR DEFAULTED Although Prieto presents 82 assignments of error in this appeal, [2] a number of the assignments will not be…”
Boggs v. Commonwealth, 331 S.E.2d 407 (Va. 1985). · cites it 2× “The same rule applies to the defendant’s motion to sequester the jury, for, as provided in Code § 19.2-264, “[i]n any case of a felony the jury shall not be kept together unless the court otherwise directs.”
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 281 S.E.2d 915 (Va. 1981). · cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-264. A necessary adjunct to a fair trial is an open trial.”
Virginia Dep't of Corr. v. Clark, 318 S.E.2d 399 (Va. 1984). · cites it 2× “Following a separate penalty proceeding, pursuant to Code § 19.2-264, the jury determined that Clark’s conduct in committing the offense was “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved depravity of mind or aggravated battery to the victim,” and fixed…”
Wilbert Lee Evans v. Charles Thompson, Superintendent, 881 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1989). “Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264 .3C. Prior to this amendment, if the Commonwealth failed to secure a valid death sentence due to errors in the sentencing process it was foreclosed from seeking capital resentencing and the defendant received an automatic sentence of life imprisonment.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264(B) — 1 case
Remington v. Commonwealth, 551 S.E.2d 620 (Va. 2001). “Addi *357 tionally, the defendant argues that the circuit court’s ruling violated Code § 19.2-264(B), this Court’s prior decisions, and the defendant’s constitutional rights to present mitigation evidence.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264(C) — 2 cases
Walker v. Commonwealth, 515 S.E.2d 565 (Va. 1999). “The Commonwealth further stated that, if Walker was convicted of capital murder, it would seek the death penalty based on the aggravating factors of “vileness” and “future dangerousness.”
Commonwealth v. Waddler, 65 Va. Cir. 418 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2004).
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264(D) — 1 case
Roach v. Commonwealth, 468 S.E.2d 98 (Va. 1996). “d) If the response to (c) includes statement that Commonwealth intends to prove the “vileness” factor as set out in Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264 .4C, to identify as many of the components of the factor, torture, depravity of mind, aggravated battery on which it intends to offer…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264(D)(2) — 1 case
Emmett v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 609 S.E.2d 602 (Va. 2005).
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.