No judge shall be competent to testify in any criminal or civil proceeding as to any matter which came before him in the course of his official duties.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, no clerk of any court, magistrate, or other person having the power to issue warrants, shall be competent to testify in any criminal or civil proceeding as to any matter which came before him in the course of his official duties. Such person shall be competent to testify in any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant is charged with perjury or pursuant to the provisions of § 18.2-460 or in any proceeding authorized pursuant to § 19.2-353.3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any judge, clerk of any court, magistrate, or other person having the power to issue warrants, who is the victim of a crime, shall not be incompetent solely because of his office to testify in any criminal or civil proceeding arising out of the crime.
Code 1950, §§ 19.1-267, 19.1-268; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 269; 1989, c. 738; 1990, c. 602; 2015, c. 635.
Notes of Decisions
George M. Epps, Sheriff of City of Petersburg, Virginia v. Commonwealth, 626 S.E.2d 912 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 131× “JUDGE BASKERVILL’S TESTIMONY Appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing Judge Baskervill to testify at the contempt hearing, in violation of Code § 19.2-271. Code § 19.2-271 states in part: “No judge shall be competent to testify in any criminal or civil proceeding as…”
Epps v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 67 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 119× “JUDGE BASKERVILL'S TESTIMONY Appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing Judge Baskervill to testify at the contempt hearing, in violation of Code § 19.2-271. Code § 19.2-271 states in part: "No judge shall be competent to testify in any criminal or civil proceeding as…”
Commonwealth v. Epps, 641 S.E.2d 77 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 20× “In this appeal, we consider whether a judge is a "victim" of contempt of court as contemplated by Code § 19.2-271. I. Facts and Proceedings Below This controversy arises over security at the Circuit Court for the City of Petersburg (the "courthouse").”
Carter v. Commonwealth, 403 S.E.2d 360 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “2-187; and (2) by allowing the clerk of the circuit court to testify about the filing in violation of Code § 19.2-271. We disagree with both arguments and affirm his conviction.”
Gilman v. Commonwealth, 628 S.E.2d 54 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 12× “2-459 provides that the circuit court judge "may hear the case upon the certificate and any legal testimony adduced on either side.”
Baugh v. Commonwealth, 417 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “" Oftentimes, however, the district court judge is an indispensable witness to the contemptuous event and his or her testimony is essential to prosecution of the offense on an appeal. Code § 18.2-459 resolves this dilemma by requiring that the district court judge submit a…”
Myrick v. Commonwealth, 412 S.E.2d 176 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Myrick objected that the clerk was not permitted to testify by virtue of Code § 19.2-271. The court sustained that objection, and the clerk did not testify.”
Mullins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 372 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Mullins further contends that the trial court erred by permitting a deputy clerk to testify, in violation of Code § 19.2-271, that defense counsel had looked at the court file prior to trial.”
Mullins v. Com., 404 S.E.2d 237 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “Mullins further contends that the trial court erred by permitting a deputy clerk to testify, in violation of Code § 19.2-271, that defense counsel had looked at the court file prior to trial.”
George M. Epps, Sheriff of City of Petersburg, Virginia v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 93× “JUDGE BASKERVILL’S TESTIMONY Appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing Judge Baskervill to testify at the contempt hearing, in violation of Code § 19.2-271. Code § 19.2-271 states in part: “No judge shall be competent to testify in any criminal or civil proceeding as…”
Bartlett v. Bank of Carroll, 237 S.E.2d 115 (Va. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Appellants point to Code § 19.2-271, which provides that “no judge shall be competent to testify in any criminal or civil proceeding as to any matter which shall have come before him in the course of his official duties”.”
Brian Hernandez v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 16× “Specifically, he argues that the circuit court judge erred by: (1) testifying in the contempt proceeding in violation of Code § 19.2-271 and (2) finding the evidence sufficient to support a finding of contempt.”
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.