Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-270 (2026)
When statement by accused as witness not received as evidence
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In a criminal prosecution, other than for perjury, or in an action on a penal statute, evidence shall not be given against the accused of any statement made by him as a witness upon a legal examination, in a criminal or civil action, unless such statement was made when examined as a witness in his own behalf.
Code 1950, § 19.1-267; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1988, c. 366.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases, 1978–2016 · leading case: Gosling v. Commonwealth, 415 S.E.2d 870 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
Gosling v. Commonwealth, 415 S.E.2d 870 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). “Defendant requested the trial court to advise Hamrick of that protection provided to witnesses by Code § 19.2-270, [2] recited several additional questions he "would like to ask," and moved the court to "compel [Hamrick] to testify" or be "in contempt.”
Cunningham v. Commonwealth, 344 S.E.2d 389 (Va. Ct. App. 1986). “Upon completion of all the evidence the trial court invoked Code § 19.2-270, called Clements as a court witness, and ordered him to testify.”
Frazier v. Commonwealth, 579 S.E.2d 628 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “On appeal, she contends the trial court's admission of her testimony from the previous trial of her boyfriend violated Code § 19.2-270. We hold the prior testimony was inadmissible against appellant under Code § 19.”
Boney v. Commonwealth, 432 S.E.2d 7 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). “Boney argues that the immunity granted under Code § 19.2-270 is “co-extensive with the constitutional right against self-incrimination” and that the trial judge’s refusal to order the witness to testify contravenes Code § 19.”
Larry Alanza Thornton v. Commonwealth, 467 S.E.2d 820 (Va. Ct. App. 1996). “Thornton contends that the trial judge violated Code § 19.2-270 when he admitted evidence of incriminating testimony that Thornton previously had given at his brother’s trial on related charges.”
O'Dell v. Commonwealth, 364 S.E.2d 491 (Va. 1988). “O’Dell had the trial court make arrangements so Pruett could testify, but then later requested the trial court to excuse Pruett. O’Dell attempts to justify his action by claiming Pruett had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
Commonwealth v. Sluss, 419 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). “2d 870 (1992), that because Code § 19.2-270 confers only use immunity, and does not confer derivative use immunity, the statute may not be invoked to override a person’s assertion of the fifth amendment privilege *604 against self-incrimination.”
Justin Wolfe v. Harold Clarke, 718 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2013). “2d at 873 ; Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-270 )). 50 Commonwealth prosecutors that the only testimony they are interested in compelling is that which would implicate Wolfe.”
Clark v. Commonwealth, 247 S.E.2d 376 (Va. 1978). “Before Cooper testified, the trial court was advised that both Cooper and Edwards wished to testify for the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth’s Attorney had conferred with their counsel as to the effect of Code § 19.2-270 1 and had agreed that whatever they said in court…”
Tharpe v. Commonwealth, 441 S.E.2d 228 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). “apply, appellant will not prevail because she was given derivative use immunity by the Commonwealth as required under that code section, viz.”
Johnson v. Riddle, 281 S.E.2d 843 (Va. 1981). “1-267 has been repealed, amended, and reenacted as Code § 19.2-270. 1975 Acts c. 495.”
Crawford v. Commonwealth, 534 S.E.2d 332 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). “Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting the DNA instruction based on Code § 19.2-270,5. We, therefore, reverse and remand the case for further proceedings.”
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.