Crimes Against Nature Lawyer Virginia

Virginia’s crimes against nature statute is not what most people searching for it expect to find. Va. Code § 18.2-361 once carried a general prohibition on sodomy. That language was removed by the General Assembly in 2014 Va. Acts ch. 794, after the Fourth Circuit held the prior version of the section facially unconstitutional in MacDonald v. Moose (4th Cir. 2013) under Lawrence v. Texas. Consensual conduct between adults is not chargeable under this section and has not been since 2014. What remains is narrow. Subsection A reaches carnal knowledge of a brute animal and grades it as a Class 6 felony. Subsection B reaches cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, or anal intercourse performed upon or by a person’s daughter, son, grandchild, sibling, or parent, and grades that as a Class 5 felony, elevated to a Class 3 felony where a parent or grandparent commits the act with a child aged 13 to 17. Subsection C extends the parent, grandparent, child, and grandchild categories to step-relations. A charge under this section therefore turns on two questions: what the alleged conduct was, and what the relationship between the parties was. Both must be proved, and both can be contested. Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys represent people accused under this section in Virginia trial courts. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

What a Crimes Against Nature Charge Means in Virginia Today

Va. Code § 18.2-361 is short, and its current reach is narrower than its title suggests. Subsection A addresses carnal knowledge of a brute animal and grades that conduct as a Class 6 felony. Subsection B addresses cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, or anal intercourse performed upon or by the accused person’s daughter, son, grandchild, sibling, or parent, and grades that conduct as a Class 5 felony. Where a parent or grandparent commits the act with a child aged 13 to 17, the grade rises to a Class 3 felony. Subsection C provides that the parent, grandparent, child, and grandchild categories include step-relations.

The general sodomy prohibition this section once contained is gone. The General Assembly removed it in 2014 Va. Acts ch. 794. That amendment followed MacDonald v. Moose (4th Cir. 2013), in which the Fourth Circuit held the earlier version of the section facially unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas. The practical result is that consensual conduct between adults cannot be charged under § 18.2-361, and it has not been chargeable under it since 2014. Older commentary, cached pages, and secondhand accounts still describe the statute as it read before that change. A reader who arrives here working from that older understanding is working from a version of Virginia law that no longer exists.

Because the surviving subsections turn on either the identity of the other participant as an animal or on the familial relationship between the parties, two elements carry most of the weight in a contested case. The first is the conduct itself. The second is the relationship, including whether a step-relationship falls within subsection C. Neither element is established by the charging document. Each must be proved by the Commonwealth.

Counts under this section rarely arrive alone, and the § 18.2-361 count is sometimes the count that does not survive scrutiny. Reading the warrant or indictment against the current text of the section, rather than against the statute’s reputation, is the starting point in every one of these matters.

How Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys Handle These Cases

Work on these matters begins with the charging document. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys read the warrant or indictment against the current text of Va. Code § 18.2-361 and identify which subsection the Commonwealth is proceeding under. Where a count rests on language the General Assembly removed in 2014, that is raised as a legal challenge rather than left for a jury to sort out.

Where the charge is brought under subsection B, or under the elevated grading within it, the relationship between the parties is a separate element with its own proof problems. Records, family history, and the reach of subsection C into step-relations are examined before any position is taken on the underlying facts.

The conduct element is approached through the evidence the Commonwealth actually holds. That may include forensic testing, digital communications, medical records, or a single account from a complaining witness. The attorneys review the chain of custody on physical items, the conditions under which statements were taken, and whether interviews of a child complainant followed accepted practice. Inconsistencies between successive accounts are documented rather than assumed away.

These counts often travel with other charges in the same indictment. The firm evaluates how a § 18.2-361 count interacts with the counts around it, because resolving one can change the posture of the rest, including any registration consequence that attaches to a conviction.

Clients are told what the record supports and what it does not. Some matters are resolved through motions practice, some through negotiation with the Commonwealth, and some are tried. Each file is prepared as though it will be tried, because that preparation is what gives the other paths their value. No outcome is promised.

About Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys

Mr. Sris is the Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. and a former prosecutor. That earlier work informs how he reads a charging document in a sex-offense matter: what a prosecutor has to commit to in writing, what a file has to contain before a count can be sustained, and where the gap between an allegation and admissible proof tends to open. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York.

The firm has practiced since 1997. Matters under Va. Code § 18.2-361 are handled by Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys, who practice in Virginia criminal defense and are experienced in charges that carry collateral consequences beyond the sentence itself. Staffing is set by what the file requires, and clients are told who is working on their matter.

Cases of this kind are frequently discussed by people who are certain the statute says something it no longer says. Part of the work is factual correction, in conversations with a client’s family, and where it becomes relevant, in filings. The firm maintains 24/7 phone intake so that a call is answered when a client or a client’s family needs to reach the firm.

Request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is consensual conduct between adults still a crime under this statute?

No. The general prohibition on sodomy that Va. Code § 18.2-361 once contained was removed by the General Assembly in 2014 Va. Acts ch. 794. That change followed MacDonald v. Moose (4th Cir. 2013), in which the Fourth Circuit held the earlier version of the section facially unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas. Since 2014, the section has reached only carnal knowledge of a brute animal and the enumerated conduct between the close family members the statute lists. If you have read that consensual adult conduct is a felony in Virginia under this section, you have read a description of a statute that no longer exists in that form.

What conduct does Va. Code § 18.2-361 still cover?

Two categories. Subsection A covers carnal knowledge of a brute animal. Subsection B covers cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, or anal intercourse performed upon or by your daughter, son, grandchild, sibling, or parent. Subsection C extends the parent, grandparent, child, and grandchild categories to step-relations, so a step-relationship can bring conduct inside subsection B that would otherwise fall outside it. Nothing else remains in the section. If the conduct described in your charging document does not fit one of these descriptions, that is a question to raise with counsel before anything else is addressed.

What felony classification applies to a charge under this section?

It depends on the subsection. Conduct under subsection A is a Class 6 felony. Conduct under subsection B is a Class 5 felony. Where a parent or grandparent commits the act with a child aged 13 to 17, the offense is a Class 3 felony. This page does not state sentencing ranges, because the range that would apply to your matter depends on the classification charged, the record, and factors specific to your case. Ask counsel to walk you through the classification alleged in your own charging document rather than relying on a general description.

Does the statute apply to stepfamily relationships?

It can. Subsection C provides that the parent, grandparent, child, and grandchild categories in the section include step-relations. That means a step-parent, step-grandparent, step-child, or step-grandchild relationship can place conduct within subsection B. Whether a qualifying relationship existed is a factual element, not a label the Commonwealth may simply assert. Where the relationship is disputed, or where its status changed over the relevant period, the question is developed through records and testimony the same way any other contested element is developed.

What should you do if you have been charged or contacted about an allegation under this section?

Stop discussing the allegation with anyone other than counsel. That includes investigators, family members, and anyone connected to the complaining witness, and it includes text messages and social media. Preserve your phone and any records you already have rather than deleting anything. Write down what you remember while it is fresh, and give that account to counsel rather than to anyone else. Bring the warrant, summons, or indictment with you, along with any correspondence you have received. Request a consultation with Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. at (888) 437-7747.

This page provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.