Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-403 (2026)

Witness proving adverse; contradiction; prior inconsistent statement (Subsection (c) of Supreme Court Rule 2:607 and subdivision (a)(i) of Supreme Court Rule 2:613 derived from this section)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A party producing a witness shall not be allowed to impeach his credit by general evidence of bad character, but he may, in case the witness shall in the opinion of the court prove adverse, by leave of the court, prove that he has made at other times a statement inconsistent with his present testimony; but before such last mentioned proof can be given the circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion, must be mentioned to the witness, and he must be asked whether or not he has made such statement. In every such case the court, if requested by either party, shall instruct the jury not to consider the evidence of such inconsistent statements, except for the purpose of contradicting the witness.

Code 1950, § 8-292; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Williams v. Commonwealth, 360 S.E.2d 361 (Va. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Williams v. Commonwealth, 360 S.E.2d 361 (Va. 1987). · cites it 4× “The doctor concluded by affirming the second visit. Williams misconceives the situation. Impeachment involves an attack on the credibility of a witness.”

Maxey v. Commonwealth, 495 S.E.2d 536 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “1 Code § 8.01-403 permits the impeachment of a witness who “proves adverse.”

Roberts v. Commonwealth, 337 S.E.2d 255 (Va. 1985). · cites it 4× “The trial court told the jury in an oral instruction that Hubbard’s prior statements were not substantive evidence and could not be considered on the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence but solely for the purpose of affecting his credibility.”

Ragland v. Commonwealth, 434 S.E.2d 675 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “” We cannot say as a matter of law that the representations of the prosecutor, as an oificer of the court, were false.”

Smallwood v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 140 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Clearly, although the Commonwealth used the term, “adverse witness,” the prosecutor actually asked the trial court to find Norton had provided adverse testimony and to allow the Commonwealth to impeach its own witness.”

Brown v. Commonwealth, 366 S.E.2d 716 (Va. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “In response, the Commonwealth contends that Code § 8.01-403 permits this type of impeachment testimony.”

Hall v. Commonwealth, 355 S.E.2d 591 (Va. 1987). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-403, applicable to civil and criminal cases alike, expressly provides that an adverse witness may be impeached by proof of a prior inconsistent statement, but “[i]n every such case the court, if requested by either party, shall instruct the jury not to consider the…”

Wells v. Commonwealth, 531 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× ““Code § 8.01-403, applicable in criminal as well as civil cases, allows impeachment of a party’s witness with prior inconsistent statements after that witness had been found by the trial court to be adverse.”

Beverly v. Commonwealth, 403 S.E.2d 175 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “ESTES’ PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT We need not pass on the admissibility of Dye’s testimony as the Commonwealth concedes that the evidence was inadmissible due to the failure of the prosecutor to lay the foundation required by Code § 8.01-403. The Commonwealth contends, however,…”

Royal v. Commonwealth, 362 S.E.2d 323 (Va. 1987). · cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-403. *406 In the present case, while the prosecutor used the prior statement ostensibly to “refresh” the witness’ memory, the content of the statement was revealed to the jury.”

Underwood v. Brown, 338 S.E.2d 854 (Va. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “The procedure whereby a litigant may impeach a witness whom he has called is prescribed in Code § 8.01-403: A party producing a witness shall not be allowed to impeach his credit by general evidence of bad character, but he may, in case the witness shall in the opinion of the…”

Solomon Jerome Miller v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “2:607(c)(i); Code § 8.01-403; Ragland v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.”

Show all 35 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.