A witness in a criminal case may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, relative to the subject matter of the proceeding, without such writing being shown to him; but if it is intended to contradict such witness by the writing, his attention must, before such contradictory proof can be given, be called to the particular occasion on which the writing is supposed to have been made, and he may be asked if he did not make a writing of the purport of the one to be offered to contradict him, and if he denies making it, or does not admit its execution, it shall then be shown to him, and if he admits its genuineness, he shall be allowed to make his own explanation of it; but it shall be competent for the court at any time during the trial to require the production of the writing for its inspection, and the court may thereupon make such use of it for the purpose of the trial as it may think best.
Code 1950, § 8-293; 1958, c. 380; 1960, c. 114; 1964, c. 356; 1977, c. 624.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case:
Newton v. Commonwealth, 512 S.E.2d 846 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
Newton v. Commonwealth, 512 S.E.2d 846 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 36× “On appeal, we decide whether Code § 19.2-268.1— which addresses impeachment of witnesses and allows “the court at any time during the trial to require the production” of “previous statements made by [a witness] in writing or reduced into writing” — provides authority for a trial…”
Garnett v. Commonwealth, 642 S.E.2d 782 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 20× “[15] Code § 19.2-268.1 states in relevant part that: "A witness in a criminal case may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him [and] reduced into writing.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 425 S.E.2d 95 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 24× “Under Code § 19.2-268.1, A witness in a criminal case may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, relative to the subject matter of the proceeding, without such writing being shown to him; but if it is intended to contradict…”
Edwards v. Commonwealth, 454 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 12× “The Commonwealth contends that Code § 19.2-268.1 1 applies and that therefore appellant was required to use a transcript when attempting to impeach the two witnesses.”
Scott v. Commonwealth, 372 S.E.2d 771 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 12× “In addition, neither Code § 19.2-268.1 nor the Supreme Court's decision in Patterson v.”
Currie v. Commonwealth, 515 S.E.2d 335 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “2d 95, 98 (1992)); see also Code § 19.2-268.1. 4 “If a witness gives testimony that is inconsistent with a prior statement, or testifies that he does not recall making the prior statement, a sufficient foundation for impeachment has been laid and opposing counsel may…”
Spruill v. Commonwealth, 271 S.E.2d 419 (Va. 1980).
· cites it 2× “” Defendant further argues “the letter was clearly admissible under Virginia law either to show bias or prior inconsistent statements,” citing Code § 19.2-268.1 which provides for contradiction of a witness in a criminal case by the use of a prior inconsistent statement in…”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 453 S.E.2d 572 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 10× “STIPULATION OF FACTS We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the stipulation of facts pursuant to Code § 19.2-268.1. In reaching the merits of this issue, we reject the Commonwealth’s contention that this issue is barred on appeal under Rule 5A:18.”
Gregory William Wilson v. Commonwealth, 487 S.E.2d 857 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Wilson Wilson argues that the trial court erred in not requiring the Commonwealth, under Code § 19.2-268.1, to produce the inconsistent writing used to impeach Mrs.”
Charles Momodou Thomas, etc. v. Commonwealth, 484 S.E.2d 607 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Because this record does not disclose a violation of the attorney-client privilege, we decline to address this issue and attendant implications of Code § 19.2-268.1.”
Christian Arpad Petrovics v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0393222 (Va. Ct. App. May 16, 2023).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 19.2-268.1. First, counsel must call the witness’s attention to the circumstances of the occasion on which the alleged prior statement was made.”
Commonwealth v. Evans, 55 Va. Cir. 237 (Southampton Cir. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-268.1 (Michie 2000).”
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.