Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-286 (2026)

Conviction of attempt or as accessory on indictment for felony; effect of general verdict of not guilty

✓ current as of May 2026

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

On an indictment for felony the jury may find the accused not guilty of the felony but guilty of an attempt to commit such felony, or of being an accessory thereto; and a general verdict of not guilty, upon such indictment, shall be a bar to a subsequent prosecution for an attempt to commit such felony, or of being an accessory thereto.

Code 1950, § 19.1-254; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Dalton, 524 S.E.2d 860 (Va. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Dalton, 524 S.E.2d 860 (Va. 2000). · cites it 48× “Nevertheless, relying upon Code § 19.2-286 and Rule 3A:17(c), the Court held that the evidence was sufficient to entitle Dalton to an accessory-after-the-fact jury instruction.”

Dalton v. Commonwealth, 512 S.E.2d 142 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 122× “Only if the jury is instructed upon what constitutes an attempt or being an accessory after the fact may the jury fulfill its responsibility under the statute and rule.”

Dalton v. Commonwealth, 499 S.E.2d 22 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 70× “By requesting an instruction on accessory after the fact, appellant fully alerted the trial court that the jury should be permitted to convict him of this offense under Rule 3A:17(c) and Code § 19.2-286. Cf. id. at 530, 414 S.E.”

Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 611 S.E.2d 631 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “being an accessory thereto” — creates a statutory exception permitting the giving of an accessory-after-the fact instruction on a felony indictment against the defendant as a principal.”

Thomas v. Com., 688 S.E.2d 220 (Va. 2010). · cites it 7× “The Court of Appeals and the Trial Court erred in overruling the Defense Motion at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's Case-in-Chief to allow the case to proceed on an accessory after the fact murder theory and in refusing to grant a requested Defense instruction on that theory…”

Miller v. Commonwealth, 434 S.E.2d 897 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously (1) overruled his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an impermissible roadside stop, (2) considered evidence relating to stolen temporary license plates, and (3) convicted him without sufficient evidence and in…”

Liam Wallace Bates v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 18× “At the charging conference, relying on Code § 19.2-286, the Commonwealth requested Instruction 9A, permitting the jury to convict Bates for attempted anal sodomy if it did not find that penetration had occurred.”

John Antonio Fennell v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 12× “2d ___ (1999) (en banc), that the crime of being an accessory after the fact is not truly lesser-included in robbery or any other offense, we nevertheless conclude that appellant was legally entitled to such an instruction pursuant to Code § 19.”

Gregory Mazyck, s/k/a Gregory A. Mazyck v. CW (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “Therefore, assuming, without deciding, that defendant was entitled to the instruction in issue as a lesser-included offense, or otherwise, see Code § 19.2-286; Rule 3A:17(c), credible evidence must support such culpability.”

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.