certificates analysis in Virginia

2013In concluding there was no Confrontation Clause violation in that case, the Supreme Court noted that the certificates of analysis that were admitted “did not contain the results of [the first non-testifying examiner’s] work product in any form, much less her ‘declaration[s]’ or ‘affirmation[s].’” Id. at 333 , 699 S.E.2d at 221 (second and third alterations in original).

2013In concluding there was no Confrontation Clause violation in that case, the Supreme Court noted that the certificates of analysis that were admitted “did not contain the results of [the first non-testifying examiner’s] work product in any form, much less her ‘declaration[s]’ or ‘affirmation[s].’” Id. at 333 , 699 S.E.2d at 221 (second and third alterations in original).

2024In appellant’s view, the inconsistent weights undermine the reliability that the exhibits tested by the lab were the same substances recovered from the car and safe and, therefore, they should have been excluded. -9- This Court “review[s] a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence using an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a trial court’s decision to admit or deny evidence absent a finding of abuse of discretion.” Warren v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 788 , 802 (2023) (quoting Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 197 (2010)).

2016“We review a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a circuit court’s decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion.” Herndon v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 138, 143 , 694 S.E.2d 618, 620 (2010) (citing Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 197 , 688 S.E.2d 244, 256 (2010)).

2012Pau and Price were not present at trial, and appellant had not subpoenaed them to appear. 3 *61 Appellant objected to the admission of the certificates of analysis, arguing that their admission in the absence of an opportunity for cross-examination of Pau and Price violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Crawford, v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1374 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (holding that the admission of “testimonial” hearsay evidence violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment unless the declarant

2012Pau and Price were not present at trial, and appellant had not subpoenaed them to appear. 3 *61 Appellant objected to the admission of the certificates of analysis, arguing that their admission in the absence of an opportunity for cross-examination of Pau and Price violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Crawford, v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1374 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (holding that the admission of “testimonial” hearsay evidence violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment unless the declarant

2010The Court of Appeals denied Aguilar's appeal, finding that pursuant to this Court's decision in Magruder v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 283 , 657 S.E.2d 113 (2008), the circuit court did not err in admitting the certificates of analysis into evidence. [2] Aguilar v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0686-08-4, slip op. at 4-5 (Sept. 5, 2008) (unpublished).

2010The Court of Appeals denied Aguilar's appeal, finding that pursuant to this Court's decision in Magruder v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 283 , 657 S.E.2d 113 (2008), the circuit court did not err in admitting the certificates of analysis into evidence. [2] Aguilar v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0686-08-4, slip op. at 4-5 (Sept. 5, 2008) (unpublished).

2008Because the certificates of analysis at issue were "testimonial" hearsay, within the meaning of Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), their admission into evidence under Code § 19.2-187 in the prosecution's cases in the absence of supporting testimony from certificates' authors, violated the defendants' Confrontation Clause rights.

2008Because the certificates of analysis at issue were "testimonial" hearsay, within the meaning of Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), their admission into evidence under Code § 19.2-187 in the prosecution's cases in the absence of supporting testimony from certificates' authors, violated the defendants' Confrontation Clause rights.

2024When the Commonwealth seeks to introduce evidence that has been seized and analyzed, the chain-of-custody rule exists “to establish that the evidence obtained by the police was the same evidence tested.” Hargrove v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 545, 553 (2009) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 552, 555 (1996)).

2024When the Commonwealth seeks to introduce evidence that has been seized and analyzed, the chain-of-custody rule exists “to establish that the evidence obtained by the police was the same evidence tested.” Hargrove v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 545, 553 (2009) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 552, 555 (1996)).

2022We do not reach today whether the Commonwealth could ever prove the purity of methamphetamine through evidence other than lab testing. - 16 - beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor obstruction of justice); Commonwealth v. South, 272 Va. 1, 1 (2006) (holding that, when the evidence is insufficient to support conviction of a greater offense, remand for sentencing on a lesser-included offense is appropriate).

2016“We review a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a circuit court’s decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion.” Herndon v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 138, 143 , 694 S.E.2d 618, 620 (2010) (citing Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 197 , 688 S.E.2d 244, 256 (2010)).

2016“We review a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and, on appeal, will not disturb a circuit court’s decision to admit evidence absent a finding of abuse of that discretion.” Herndon v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 138, 143 , 694 S.E.2d 618, 620 (2010) (citing Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 197 , 688 S.E.2d 244, 256 (2010)).

2013See Baker, 284 Va. at 576, 733 S.E.2d at 644 (affirming all three of Baker’s convictions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon because “each is a separate and distinct act or occurrence of possession”); see also Spear, 221 Va. at 456 , 270 S.E.2d at 740 (explaining that the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine is complete upon sufficient proof of manufacturing, with no further proof of intent required).

2013See Baker, 284 Va. at 576, 733 S.E.2d at 644 (affirming all three of Baker’s convictions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon because “each is a separate and distinct act or occurrence of possession”); see also Spear, 221 Va. at 456 , 270 S.E.2d at 740 (explaining that the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine is complete upon sufficient proof of manufacturing, with no further proof of intent required).

2010United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 635 (4th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Lombardozzi, 491 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir.2007)).

2010Because a violation of the Confrontation Clause, like other constitutional violations, is subject to a harmless error analysis, see United States v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 587 (5th Cir.2010); United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214 , 1229 n. 1 (11th Cir.2010), we hold that the admission of the certificates of analysis in violation of Briscoe's Confrontation Clause rights was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2010Simply put, nothing from Morris was presented to the fact-finder in a form "functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing `precisely what a witness does on direct examination.'" Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at ___ , 129 S.Ct. at 2532 (quoting Davis, 547 U.S. at 830 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 ); see United States v. Turner, 591 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that a forensic chemist's report "was not admitted into evidence, let alone presented to the jury in the form of a sworn affidavit," and thus was not functionally equivalent to a witness' live testimony); Bradberry v. State, 297 Ga.App.

2010Simply put, nothing from Morris was presented to the fact-finder in a form "functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing `precisely what a witness does on direct examination.'" Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at ___ , 129 S.Ct. at 2532 (quoting Davis, 547 U.S. at 830 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 ); see United States v. Turner, 591 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that a forensic chemist's report "was not admitted into evidence, let alone presented to the jury in the form of a sworn affidavit," and thus was not functionally equivalent to a witness' live testimony); Bradberry v. State, 297 Ga.App.

2010Simply put, nothing from Morris was presented to the fact-finder in a form "functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing `precisely what a witness does on direct examination.'" Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at ___ , 129 S.Ct. at 2532 (quoting Davis, 547 U.S. at 830 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 ); see United States v. Turner, 591 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that a forensic chemist's report "was not admitted into evidence, let alone presented to the jury in the form of a sworn affidavit," and thus was not functionally equivalent to a witness' live testimony); Bradberry v. State, 297 Ga.App.

2010United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 635 (4th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Lombardozzi, 491 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir.2007)).

2010See Cypress v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. ___ , ___, 699 S.E.2d 206 , ___ (2010) (this day decided).

2010NOTES [1] Aguilar and his brother had been employees of a company that performed cleaning services at the bank where the incident involving Arnez occurred. [2] That case is also before this Court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States and is the subject of Cypress v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. ___ , 699 S.E.2d 206 (2010) (this day decided). [3] Aguilar only assigns error to the admission of the certificates of analysis, not to Himes' testimony generally.

2002Wilson failed to object to the admissibility of the certificates of analysis, but did move to strike the evidence on the ground of sufficiency. -2- "All that is necessary to establish a chain of custody of exhibits is that the evidence afford reasonable assurance that the exhibits at trial are the same and in the same condition as they were when first obtained." Smith v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 554, 559 , 248 S.E.2d 805, 808 (1978).

2002Wilson failed to object to the admissibility of the certificates of analysis, but did move to strike the evidence on the ground of sufficiency. -2- "All that is necessary to establish a chain of custody of exhibits is that the evidence afford reasonable assurance that the exhibits at trial are the same and in the same condition as they were when first obtained." Smith v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 554, 559 , 248 S.E.2d 805, 808 (1978).

2002"The Commonwealth is not required to exclude every conceivable possibility of substitution, alteration, or tampering." Pope v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 114, 121 , 360 S.E.2d 352, 357 (1987).

2002"The Commonwealth is not required to exclude every conceivable possibility of substitution, alteration, or tampering." Pope v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 114, 121 , 360 S.E.2d 352, 357 (1987).