During the trial of every criminal case and in all court proceedings attendant to trial, whether before, during or after trial, including any proceedings occurring after an appeal by the defendant or the Commonwealth, at which attendance by the defendant is permitted, whether in a circuit or district court, any victim as defined in § 19.2-11.01 may remain in the courtroom and shall not be excluded unless the court determines, in its discretion, the presence of the victim would impair the conduct of a fair trial. In any case involving a minor victim, the court may permit an adult chosen by the minor to be present in the courtroom during any proceedings in addition to or in lieu of the minor's parent or guardian.
The attorney for the Commonwealth shall give prior notice when practicable of such trial and attendant proceedings and changes in the scheduling thereof to any known victim and to any known adult chosen in accordance with this section by a minor victim, at the address or telephone number, or both, provided in writing by such person.
1993, cc. 447, 452; 1994, cc. 361, 598; 1995, c. 687; 1996, c. 546; 1999, c. 844; 2000, c. 339.
Notes of Decisions
Hernandez-Guerrero v. Commonwealth, 617 S.E.2d 410 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 20× “” Former Code § 19.2-265.01 (emphasis added). In 1999, however, the General Assembly put the matter the other way around—stating that a victim “shall not be excluded unless the court determines, in its discretion, the presence of the victim would substantially impair the conduct…”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 590 S.E.2d 520 (Va. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to the provisions of Code § 19.2-265.01, a victim, which includes Mrs.”
Jackson v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 627 S.E.2d 776 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The Court holds that this portion of claim VI(A) satisfies neither the "performance" nor the "prejudice" prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland .”
Hugh Kevin Wooddell v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 26× “01 [sic] of the code section," it is implicit that the parties were referring to Code § 19.2-265.01. 1 The trial court denied the defendant's motion and permitted Chesnut to remain in the courtroom during Rockett's testimony.”
Joshua Tyrone Harris v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “01(A)(4)(b) (citing Code § 19.2-265.01). Consistent with these statutory provisions, a victim-witness who remains in the courtroom “inevitably hears the testimony of the [other] witnesses at trial either before he testifies on direct [examination] or before his opportunity to…”
Frank Edward Osborne v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “” Code § 19.2-265.01. -2- Appellant’s counsel thereafter objected to the proceeding and asked for a continuance.”
James Monroe Hague, s/k/a etc. v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Assuming that, pursuant to former Code § 19.2-265.01, the trial court should have excluded the victim from the courtroom, the trial court did not commit reversible error.”
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.