Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-358 (2026)
Voir dire examination of persons called as jurors
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The court and counsel for either party shall have the right to examine under oath any person who is called as a juror therein and shall have the right to ask such person or juror directly any relevant question to ascertain whether he is related to either party, or has any interest in the cause, or has expressed or formed any opinion, or is sensible of any bias or prejudice therein; and the party objecting to any juror may introduce any competent evidence in support of the objection; and if it shall appear to the court that the juror does not stand indifferent in the cause, another shall be drawn or called and placed in his stead for the trial of that case.
A juror, knowing anything relative to a fact in issue, shall disclose the same in open court.
Code 1950, §§ 8-208.28, 8-215; 1973, c. 439; 1977, c. 617; 1981, c. 280.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 149
cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Juniper v. Com., 626 S.E.2d 383 (Va. 2006).
Juniper v. Com., 626 S.E.2d 383 (Va. 2006). “Although Juniper argues the trial court abused its discretion, he also relies on the statutory right to examine potential jurors on issues of relationship, interest, opinion, or prejudice under Code § 8.01-358. The Commonwealth responds there was no abuse of discretion and that…”
Mu'Min v. Commonwealth, 389 S.E.2d 886 (Va. 1990). “It does not follow that litigants have a constitutional right to know what that information is. They are entitled to know only whether the prospective juror, in reliance upon the information acquired, has formed an opinion and, if so, whether the juror can yet "stand indifferent…”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 273 S.E.2d 36 (Va. 1980). “Refusal to Allow Counsel-Conducted'Voir Dire The defendant contends that Code § 8.01-358 3 gives both court and counsel an unconditional right to question prospective jurors directly and that the trial court abridged this statutorily created right by refusing to allow…”
LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 304 S.E.2d 644 (Va. 1983). “What your question in the past has been getting at is, in effect, asking the jury to sanction what is an illegal act.”
George Wesley Huguely, V v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 754 S.E.2d 557 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). “Rather, *117 “the questions propounded during voir dire must be relevant to the factors prescribed in Code § 8.01-358.” Id. Code § 8.01-358 states, in pertinent part, that the trial court and the attorneys for either pqrty “shall have the right to ask [a prospective juror]…”
Charity v. Commonwealth, 482 S.E.2d 59 (Va. Ct. App. 1997). “Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting identification evidence and by conducting voir dire itself, refusing to allow appellant's counsel to ask questions as provided by Code § 8.01-358. Finding no reversible error, a panel of this Court affirmed appellant's…”
Powell v. Kelly, 531 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. Va. 2008). “On direct appeal, Powell argued that his right to a fair trial was violated by the trial court’s refusal to allow this line of questioning, arguing that this questioning fell within the ambit of Va.Code § 8.01-358, which states that either party has the right to question a…”
Thomas v. Com., 688 S.E.2d 220 (Va. 2010). “If any one of you were my client, would there be any reason you would not want yourself on this jury? The trial court permitted the statement at the outset of item 17 and allowed the second question posed within it, but disallowed the first question. Thomas argues that the trial…”
Green v. Commonwealth, 580 S.E.2d 834 (Va. 2003). “See Code § 8.01-358 (“counsel for either party shall have the right to examine under oath any person who is called as a juror *97 .”
Powell v. Commonwealth, 590 S.E.2d 537 (Va. 2004). “” Code § 8.01-358. To that end, prospective jurors may be asked any question relevant to determine whether they may be subject to being removed from the venire for cause.”
Tuggle v. Commonwealth, 323 S.E.2d 539 (Va. 1984). “He argues that the 1981 amendment to Code § 8.01-358 3 gives him that right. We do not agree.”
Bell v. Commonwealth, 563 S.E.2d 695 (Va. 2002). “Bell next contends that the circuit court improperly rehabilitated prospective jurors Battaile, Anderson, Loy, Wood, Janelle, *196 Funkhouser, and Haines.”
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.