Virginia Assault and Battery: Accord and Satisfaction

An agreement between two people does not, by itself, dismiss a Virginia assault and battery prosecution. In a limited category of misdemeanor cases, Virginia Code § 19.2-151 allows a court to grant relief after the injured person appears and acknowledges in writing that satisfaction for the injury has been received. The court retains discretion, and several important exclusions apply.

This procedure is often called accord and satisfaction. The important distinction is between a private understanding and a court order. A promise to resolve a disagreement, a payment, or a request to drop the charge should not be treated as proof that the criminal case has ended.

Start with the exact charge and procedural posture

Virginia Code § 19.2-151 addresses specified pending assault and battery or other misdemeanor proceedings involving an available civil remedy. Its text identifies a person held in jail or under a recognizance to answer the charge, or a person who has been indicted. Whether a particular case fits those conditions requires review of the actual charge and court record.

Do not assume that every misdemeanor qualifies or that this is a way to undo an existing conviction. The alleged conduct, the injured person’s status, the available civil remedy, and the procedural stage all matter. For the separate question of what the prosecution must prove, see our Virginia assault and battery guide.

Four exclusions must be checked first

Section 19.2-151 excludes an offense committed:

• By or upon a law-enforcement officer.
• Riotously in violation of §§ 18.2-404 through 18.2-407.
• Against a family or household member in violation of § 18.2-57.2.
• With intent to commit a felony.

The domestic assault and battery exclusion is explicit. An agreement between family or household members does not make this particular procedure available for a § 18.2-57.2 charge. The separate domestic assault and battery guide explains that charge and related issues; those rules should not be blended with this statute.

The officer exclusion also says both by and upon an officer. It should not be shortened to only one of those situations. Labels such as “minor incident” or “everyone agrees” do not establish eligibility.

A written agreement alone is not the statutory process

The statute requires the injured person to appear before the specified court and acknowledge in writing that satisfaction for the injury has been received. It identifies the court that made the commitment or took the recognizance, or the court where the indictment is pending. It does not describe a private document, standing alone, as sufficient.

“Has received satisfaction” is different from a future promise. This page does not determine what constitutes legally sufficient satisfaction in a particular case, supply an agreement form, recommend a payment, or tell anyone to obtain a signature. Those questions need individual legal review before action.

The judge decides whether to grant relief

Even when the statutory conditions are met, the court may grant relief; dismissal is not mandatory. Section 19.2-151 allows the court, by order, to supersede the commitment, discharge the recognizance, or dismiss the prosecution, upon the defendant’s payment of accrued costs owed to the Commonwealth or its officers.

Those prosecution costs are separate from the injured person’s acknowledgment of satisfaction. A private arrangement should not be assumed to account for every court obligation. Obtain and review the actual disposition and any resulting orders rather than relying on a conversation or an expectation about the outcome.

The neighboring § 19.2-152 addresses filing or delivering specified orders and prosecution costs. That reinforces the practical distinction: court action and its documentation matter, not simply an agreement outside court.

Preserve records without pressuring anyone

If you want counsel to evaluate this issue, organize documents already lawfully available to you:

• The complete warrant, summons, indictment, and current court notices.
• Bond conditions, protective orders, and any no-contact restrictions.
• Existing written agreements, receipts, and unaltered communications.
• Any filed acknowledgment, court order, disposition, or cost statement.

Do not pressure a witness, coordinate accounts, or disregard a contact restriction in an effort to resolve the charge. Ask counsel how any necessary communication can occur lawfully. Continue following existing orders and court instructions unless the appropriate court changes them; this article does not cancel a hearing or authorize contact.

Ask about eligibility, not a guaranteed dismissal

A useful inquiry identifies the exact Code section, court, next hearing date, and whether any agreement or order already exists. The Phoenix Trial Firm’s Hampton Roads criminal-defense page provides the existing practice-area and contact information. Ask whether the firm can evaluate the particular matter; an inquiry does not establish representation.

This guide does not decide civil settlement rights, prosecutor participation, record-clearing eligibility, or collateral consequences. Its purpose is to explain the limited statutory route and the records needed for a case-specific conversation—not to promise that an assault charge can be privately settled away.

Source review: October 24, 2026. General Virginia legal information based on the cited official Code; not advice for a particular case. No independent Shepard’s or KeyCite check was performed.