A. The Supreme Court, subject to §§ 17.1-503 and 16.1-69.32, may, from time to time, prescribe the forms of writs and make general regulations for the practice in all courts of the Commonwealth; and may prepare a system of rules of practice and a system of pleading and the forms of process and may prepare rules of evidence to be used in all such courts. This section shall be liberally construed so as to eliminate unnecessary delays and expenses.
B. The Supreme Court, subject to § 30-399, shall enact rules and procedures as may be necessary for implementing the requirements of Article II, § 6-A of the Constitution of Virginia, empowering the Supreme Court to establish congressional or state legislative districts as provided for in that section.
C. New rules and amendments to rules shall not become effective until 60 days from adoption by the Supreme Court, and shall be made available to all courts, members of the bar, and the public.
D. The Virginia Code Commission shall publish and cause to be properly indexed and annotated the rules adopted by the Supreme Court, and all amendments thereof by the Court, and all changes made therein pursuant to subsection E.
E. The General Assembly may, from time to time, by the enactment of a general law, modify or annul any rules adopted or amended pursuant to this section. In the case of any variance between a rule and an enactment of the General Assembly such variance shall be construed so as to give effect to such enactment.
F. Any amendment or addition to the rules of evidence shall be adopted by the Supreme Court on or before November 15 of any year and shall become effective on July 1 of the following year unless the General Assembly modifies or annuls any such amendment or addition by enactment of a general law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme Court, at any time, may amend the rules to conform with any enactment of the General Assembly and correct unmistakable printer's errors, misspellings, unmistakable errors to statutory cross-references, and other unmistakable errors in the rules of evidence.
G. When any rule contained in the rules of evidence is derived from one or more sections of the Code of Virginia, the Supreme Court shall include a citation to such section or sections in the title of the rule.
Code 1950, §§ 8-1, 8-1.1, 8-1.2, 8-86.1; 1950, p. 3; 1952, c. 234; 1954, c. 333; 1971, Ex. Sess., c. 2; 1972, c. 856; 1977, c. 617; 1979, c. 658; 1984, c. 524; 2003, c. 280; 2012, cc. 688, 708; 2020, Sp. Sess. I, c. 56; 2022, Sp. Sess. I, c. 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
61
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case:
Smith v. Commonwealth, 693 S.E.2d 765 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
Smith v. Commonwealth, 693 S.E.2d 765 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 10× “" Code § 8.01-3. Perhaps our Supreme Court will at some point elect to bring the same level of clarity to the term "jurisdiction" that the Supreme Court of the United States has in the federal arena in Kontrick , but in the meantime, after engaging in the exercise our Supreme…”
Jason N. Creamer v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 767 S.E.2d 226 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-3(D) (providing that in the case of conflict between a statute and court rule, the statute prevails); In re Cummins, 19 Va.”
Smith v. Com., 706 S.E.2d 889 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Some of the other elements governing the ability of a court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction in a particular case are contained in the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia prescribed and adopted by this Court pursuant to Code § 8.01-3. In Ghameshlouy , we identified…”
Dalton v. Commonwealth, 512 S.E.2d 142 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 8× “" Code § 8.01-3(D). Although the courts of Virginia have not specifically addressed Rule 3A:17(c) in its entirety, the phrase "substantially charged or necessarily included in the charge against the accused" has been analyzed.”
Shavis Donta Holloman v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 775 S.E.2d 434 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “; see also Code § 8.01-3(D) (providing that the General Assembly has the power to modify Supreme Court rules and that a statute prevails over a rule in the event of a “variance” between the two); Creamer v.”
Lewis Daniel Nimety v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 786 S.E.2d 835 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “VI, § 5, and Code § 8.01-3(D)). Additionally, under accepted principles of statutory construction, we look to the plain meaning of the words contained in a statute to determine the General Assembly’s intent.”
Woody v. Commonwealth, 670 S.E.2d 39 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to its authority under Code § 8.01-3, our Supreme Court essentially incorporated all of these statutory requirements and promulgated Rule 5A:6: (a) Timeliness.”
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 281 S.E.2d 915 (Va. 1981).
· cites it 2× “While this is not the proper forum for rule making, See Code §§ 8.01-3, 17-116.4 and 16.1-69.32, the trial courts are entitled to some guidance on the procedure to be followed when a motion for closure is made.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-3(A) — 3 cases
Smith v. Commonwealth, 693 S.E.2d 765 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“" Code § 8.01-3. Perhaps our Supreme Court will at some point elect to bring the same level of clarity to the term "jurisdiction" that the Supreme Court of the United States has in the federal arena in Kontrick , but in the meantime, after engaging in the exercise our Supreme…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-3(D) — 15 cases
Jason N. Creamer v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 767 S.E.2d 226 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“See Code § 8.01-3(D) (providing that in the case of conflict between a statute and court rule, the statute prevails); In re Cummins, 19 Va.”
Dalton v. Commonwealth, 512 S.E.2d 142 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
“" Code § 8.01-3(D). Although the courts of Virginia have not specifically addressed Rule 3A:17(c) in its entirety, the phrase "substantially charged or necessarily included in the charge against the accused" has been analyzed.”
Shavis Donta Holloman v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 775 S.E.2d 434 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“; see also Code § 8.01-3(D) (providing that the General Assembly has the power to modify Supreme Court rules and that a statute prevails over a rule in the event of a “variance” between the two); Creamer v.”
Lewis Daniel Nimety v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 786 S.E.2d 835 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
“VI, § 5, and Code § 8.01-3(D)). Additionally, under accepted principles of statutory construction, we look to the plain meaning of the words contained in a statute to determine the General Assembly’s intent.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 693 S.E.2d 765 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“" Code § 8.01-3. Perhaps our Supreme Court will at some point elect to bring the same level of clarity to the term "jurisdiction" that the Supreme Court of the United States has in the federal arena in Kontrick , but in the meantime, after engaging in the exercise our Supreme…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-3(E) — 1 case
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.