Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-267 (2026)

Provisions applicable to witnesses in criminal as well as civil cases; obligation to attend; summons

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 8.01-301.1, 8.01-396.1, 8.01-402, 8.01-405, 8.01-407, and 8.01-408 to 8.01-410 shall apply to a criminal as well as a civil case in all respects, except that a witness in a criminal case shall be obliged to attend, and may be proceeded against for failing to do so, although there may not previously have been any payment or tender to him of anything for attendance, mileage, or tolls. In a criminal case, a summons for a witness may be issued by the attorney for the Commonwealth or other attorney charged with the responsibility for the prosecution of a violation of any ordinance or by the attorney for the defendant; however, any attorney who issues such a summons shall, at the time of the issuance, file with the clerk of the court the names and addresses of such witnesses except to the extent protected under § 19.2-11.2.

Code 1950, § 19.1-262; 1960, c. 366; 1962, c. 374; 1975, c. 495; 1977, c. 624; 1991, c. 38; 1994, c. 543; 2007, c. 552; 2008, c. 124; 2014, c. 744; 2026, c. 868.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1987–2013 · leading case: Caccioppo v. Commonwealth, 458 S.E.2d 592 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Caccioppo v. Commonwealth, 458 S.E.2d 592 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10× “Caccioppo argues that the trial judge erred in allowing the Commonwealth’s witnesses to testify because the Commonwealth’s attorney in issuing its summons for witnesses failed to file with the clerk of the court the names and addresses of such witnesses pursuant to Code §…”

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Virginia Dep't of Corr. v. Brown, 529 S.E.2d 96 (Va. 2000). · cites it 4× “The Commonwealth responded by letter brief and, relying primarily upon Code § 19.2-267, asserted that while both the circuit courts and the general district courts have the authority to issue prisoner transportation orders in criminal cases, in civil cases that authority is…”

Abraham v. Commonwealth, 526 S.E.2d 277 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, (3) that the trial court erred in refusing a proffered jury instruction on voluntary intoxication, and (4) that the trial court…”

Rowan v. Tractor Supply Co., 559 S.E.2d 709 (Va. 2002). · cites it 2× “The district court also held that Rowan did not state a cause of action based on Code §§ 19.2-267 and -456 (offense to disobey witness summons in criminal case) *213 because she did not allege that TSC attempted to coerce her to disobey a lawful subpoena.”

Gilman v. Commonwealth, 628 S.E.2d 54 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “[a] person to any lawful process, judgment, decree or order of the court, including failure to appear or intentional obstruction of a witness under Code § 19.2-267. The certificate also sets forth the "circumstances" of the conviction.”

Bellis v. Commonwealth, 402 S.E.2d 211 (Va. 1991). · cites it 2× “He points out that Code § 19.2-267 specifically provides that certain sections contained in Title 8.”

Dean v. Commonwealth, 515 S.E.2d 331 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “The attorney for the Commonwealth had authority to issue the subpoenas pursuant to Code § 19.2-267 and Rule 3A:12. However, at no time, either before or during the trial, did appellant issue subpoenas for these witnesses.”

Adhan Maldonado, s/k/a Adan Maldonado v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “” Underlying this claim is his argument that Rule 3A:12 and Code § 19.2-267 permit the prosecutor to maintain a strategic advantage over defendants because the prosecutor can shelter -4- the witnesses the prosecutor subpoenas for trial from scrutiny by a defense attorney while…”

Commonwealth v. Beilis, 15 Va. Cir. 276 (Wise Norton Cir. Ct. 1989). · cites it 5× “He relies on § 19.2-267, which provides, "Sections 8.01-402, 8.”

Jonathan David Bynum v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Second, he argues that, even if admissible, the victim’s testimony was either too inconclusive or too unbelievable to prove his guilt.”

Tina Gilman, s/k/a Tina M. Gilman v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “[a] person to any lawful process, judgment, decree or order of the court, including failure to appear or intentional obstruction of a witness under Code § 19.2-267. The certificate also sets forth the “circumstances” of the conviction.”

Orlando S. Avalos v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Appellant argues that the child was incompetent because she did not independently remember the incident, she had a limited capacity to recall the events, and she did not understand or affirm the oath. Code § 8.01-396.1 states, “No child shall be deemed incompetent to testify…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

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.