                                 CODE OF VIRGINIA

DEFERRED DISPOSITION IN A CRIMINAL CASE; PERSONS WITH AUTISM OR INTELLECTUAL
DISABILITIES (§ 19.2-303.6)

A. In any criminal case, except a violation of &#xA7; 18.2-31, an act of
violence as defined in &#xA7; 19.2-297.1, or any crime for which a deferred
disposition is provided for by statute, upon a plea of guilty, or after a plea
of not guilty, and the facts found by the court would justify a finding of
guilt, the court may, if the defendant has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or
clinical psychologist with (i) an autism spectrum disorder as defined in the
most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
published by the American Psychiatric Association or (ii) an intellectual
disability as defined in &#xA7; 37.2-100 and the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the criminal conduct was caused by or had a direct and
substantial relationship to the person&#8217;s disorder or disability, without
entering a judgment of guilt and with the consent of the accused, after giving
due consideration to the position of the attorney for the Commonwealth and the
views of the victim, defer further proceedings and place the accused on
probation subject to terms and conditions set by the court. Upon violation of a
term or condition, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt; or upon
fulfillment of the terms and conditions, the court may discharge the person and
dismiss the proceedings against him without an adjudication of guilt. This
section shall not limit the authority of any juvenile and domestic relations
court granted to it in Title 16.1.

B. Deferred disposition shall be available to the defendant even though he has
previously been convicted of a criminal offense, been adjudicated delinquent as
a juvenile, or had proceedings deferred and dismissed under this section or
under any other provision of law, unless, after having considered the position
of the attorney for the Commonwealth, the views of the victims, and any evidence
offered by the defendant, the court finds that deferred disposition is
inconsistent with the interests of justice.

HISTORY: 2020, c. 1004.