In the trial of every criminal case, the court, whether a court of record or a court not of record, may upon its own motion and shall upon the motion of either the attorney for the Commonwealth or any defendant, require the exclusion of every witness to be called, including, but not limited to, police officers or other investigators; however, each defendant who is an individual and one officer or agent of each defendant which is a corporation or association shall be exempt from the rule of this section as a matter of right. Additionally, any victim as defined in § 19.2-11.01 who is to be called as a witness shall be exempt from the rule of this section as a matter of law unless, in accordance with the provisions of § 19.2-265.01, his exclusion is otherwise required.
Code 1950, § 8-211.1; 1966, c. 268; 1975, c. 652; 1977, c. 624; 1990, c. 572; 2004, c. 311.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case:
Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 576 S.E.2d 471 (Va. 2003).
Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 576 S.E.2d 471 (Va. 2003).
· cites it 4× “The defendant claims that even though the court granted a joint motion by the defendant and the Commonwealth to exclude the witnesses pursuant to Code § 19.2-265.1, Hough and Coleman violated that order.”
Chiang v. Commonwealth, 365 S.E.2d 778 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “The Commonwealth assured the trial court that it was not going to call Mann as a witness but needed him present as a consultant during the trial.”
Church v. Commonwealth, 335 S.E.2d 823 (Va. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Further, the exclusion of witnesses was also a matter of right under Code § 19.2-265.1. It is ironic that the defendant should now be able to rely on conditions entirely of his own making, and which the court was powerless to prevent, as a ground for reversal.”
Massey v. Commonwealth, 337 S.E.2d 754 (Va. 1985).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 19.2-265.1. The court granted the request.”
Hernandez-Guerrero v. Commonwealth, 617 S.E.2d 410 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “In 2004, the General Assembly added clarifying language to Code § 19.2-265.1 to eliminate any possible confusion with the 1999 amendment to § 19.”
Jury v. Commonwealth, 395 S.E.2d 213 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “At the beginning of the trial, upon motion by defense counsel under Code § 19.2-265.1, the court ordered “anyone who may testify” to wait outside and not to discuss his testimony.”
Huguely v. Clarke (W.D. Va. 2020).
· cites it 4× “See Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-265.1 . The Commonwealth’s Attorney alleged prejudice and sought sanctions against the defense, including the exclusion of Dr.”
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.