Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294 (2026)

Offense against two or more statutes or ordinances

✓ current as of May 2026

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

If the same act be a violation of two or more statutes, or of two or more ordinances, or of one or more statutes and also one or more ordinances, conviction under one of such statutes or ordinances shall be a bar to a prosecution or proceeding under the other or others. Furthermore, if the same act be a violation of both a state and a federal statute, a prosecution under the federal statute shall be a bar to a prosecution under the state statute. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any offense involving an act of terrorism as defined in § 18.2-46.4.

For purposes of this section, a prosecution under a federal statute shall be deemed to be commenced once jeopardy has attached.

Code 1950, § 19.1-259; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1987, c. 241; 2002, cc. 588, 623; 2003, c. 736.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 104 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Lash v. Cnty. of Henrico, 421 S.E.2d 851 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lash v. Cnty. of Henrico, 421 S.E.2d 851 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 177× “The defendant contends that, while he is guilty of one of the offenses, conviction of the other is barred by Code § 19.2-294. We conclude that, because conviction for each offense was based on acts separate and distinct from those involved in the other offense, Code § 19.”

Hall v. Commonwealth, 421 S.E.2d 455 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 139× “2d 689, 694 (1991), which held that Code § 19.2-294 [1] bars multiple convictions arising from the "same act," even where the convictions are obtained in a single trial.”

Phillips v. Commonwealth, 514 S.E.2d 340 (Va. 1999). · cites it 118× “The parties stipulated to the following facts. In March 1996, two arrest warrants were issued against Matthew S.”

Lash v. Cnty. of Henrico, 410 S.E.2d 689 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 148× “He contends, however, that his driving constituted one “act” and, therefore, pursuant to Code § 19.2-294, he may not be convicted of both offenses.”

Davis v. Commonwealth, 703 S.E.2d 259 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 42× “Melissa Kennedy, a forensic scientist who is a supervisor in the Breath Alcohol Department of Forensic Science, testified as an expert in toxicology. She stated that concentration and divided attention problems begin when the blood alcohol level reaches .”

Londono v. Commonwealth, 579 S.E.2d 641 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 30× “On appeal, Londono contends the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to dismiss under Code § 19.2-294 on the grounds he had already been prosecuted for the same conduct and acts in federal court, (2) in denying his motion to suppress on the grounds he was illegally seized…”

James Willis Campbell, Sr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 817 S.E.2d 663 (Va. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 22× “He further assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for possession with intent to distribute and the trial court’s ruling that the case was not barred by double jeopardy principles or by Code § 19.”

Johnson v. Commonwealth, 562 S.E.2d 341 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 26× “On appeal, he contends the conviction followed an earlier conviction for driving on a suspended license arising from the “same act” and, therefore, was barred by Code § 19.2-294. We disagree and affirm the trial court.”

De'Armond v. Commonwealth, 654 S.E.2d 317 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 21× “Not doing so, De’Armond argues, violated Code § 19.2-294 and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 581 S.E.2d 891 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 16× “We further presume that Schwartz intended, instead, to refer to Code § 19.2-294. Nevertheless, that argument is without merit.”

West v. Commonwealth, 597 S.E.2d 274 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “2d 340, 343 (1999) (recognizing legislature knows difference between "prosecution" and "conviction" by noting former jeopardy provisions of Code § 19.2-294 provide that "[i]f the same act be a violation of two or more statutes .”

Slater v. Commonwealth, 425 S.E.2d 816 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 24× “, contends (1) that his conviction was barred by Code § 19.2-294, and (2) that the trial court erred in receiving into evidence a copy of the order declaring him *817 an habitual offender.”

Show all 104 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.