Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Roseborough v. Com.green1 sentence2026The General Assembly has declared by statute that, for DUIs occurring on highways, certificates of analysis, “when attested by the individual conducting the breath test . . . , shall be admissible in any court” to prove the facts that they contain (i.e., to prove the defendant’s blood- alcohol content).9 Code § 18.2-268.9(B); see Roseborough, 281 Va. at 238 . | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1999Any such certificate of analysis purporting to be signed by a person authorized by the Division shall be admissible in evidence without proof of seal or signature of the person whose name is signed to it---- Interpreting this statute in Anderson , we rejected the contention that the certificate at issue, which contained the same relevant wording in the attestation clause, was inadmissible because the person administering the test had no personal knowledge of the machine’s performance testing. 25 Va.App. at 31 , 486 S.E.2d at 117 ; see id. at 34 n. 3, 486 S.E.2d at 119 n. 3 (Benton, J., dissent 1999Any such certificate of analysis purporting to be signed by a person authorized by the Division shall be admissible in evidence without proof of seal or signature of the person whose name is signed to it---- Interpreting this statute in Anderson , we rejected the contention that the certificate at issue, which contained the same relevant wording in the attestation clause, was inadmissible because the person administering the test had no personal knowledge of the machine’s performance testing. 25 Va.App. at 31 , 486 S.E.2d at 117 ; see id. at 34 n. 3, 486 S.E.2d at 119 n. 3 (Benton, J., dissent | 1 | 1 |
Frere v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1997This certificate, when attested by the individual conducting the breath test, shall be admissible in any court in any criminal or civil proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated and of the results of such analysis. [2] Compare Petit Frere v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 460 , 452 S.E.2d 682 (1995), upon which appellant would like to rely, in which the certificate in question contained no attestation clause. [3] No evidence proved that when the machine was tested for accuracy by the Division of Forensic Science on April 19, 1995 it was found accurate. 1997This certificate, when attested by the individual conducting the breath test, shall be admissible in any court in any criminal or civil proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated and of the results of such analysis. [2] Compare Petit Frere v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 460 , 452 S.E.2d 682 (1995), upon which appellant would like to rely, in which the certificate in question contained no attestation clause. [3] No evidence proved that when the machine was tested for accuracy by the Division of Forensic Science on April 19, 1995 it was found accurate. | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. City of Newport Newsgreen2 sentences1996See Code § 18.2-268.11; cf. Brooks, 224 Va. at 315 , 295 S.E.2d at 803 (holding that the qualification of the test operator is a substantive matter). 1996See Code § 18.2-268.11; cf. Brooks, 224 Va. at 315 , 295 S.E.2d at 803 (holding that the qualification of the test operator is a substantive matter). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Epperly v. County of Montgomery
green
1 sentence2006Judge Felton was elected Chief Judge effective April 1, 2006. [**] Judge Fitzpatrick participated in the hearing and decision of this case prior to the effective date of her retirement on March 31, 2006. [1] 46 Va.App. 545 , 620 S.E.2d 125 (2005). [2] Code § 18.2-268.9 states in relevant part: "This certificate, when attested by the individual conducting the breath test, shall be admissible in any court in any criminal . . . proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated and of the results of such analysis." [3] At oral argument appellant maintained for the first time that the breath test | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Cregger v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2006Further, the Commonwealth maintained that appellant’s rights to cross-examination and confrontation were preserved under 2 Appellant admits that the breath sample was properly taken. 3 The statement of facts does not reveal when appellant was provided a copy of the certificate. 4 Code § 18.2-268.9 provides in relevant part, “This certificate, when attested by the individual conducting the breath test, shall be admissible in any court in any criminal or civil proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated and of the results of such analysis.” Code § 19.2-187 requires the Commonwealth to fil 2006Further, the Commonwealth maintained that appellant’s rights to cross-examination and confrontation were preserved under 2 Appellant admits that the breath sample was properly taken. 3 The statement of facts does not reveal when appellant was provided a copy of the certificate. 4 Code § 18.2-268.9 provides in relevant part, “This certificate, when attested by the individual conducting the breath test, shall be admissible in any court in any criminal or civil proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated and of the results of such analysis.” Code § 19.2-187 requires the Commonwealth to fil | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth
neutral
1 sentence2006Judge Felton was elected Chief Judge effective April 1, 2006. [**] Judge Fitzpatrick participated in the hearing and decision of this case prior to the effective date of her retirement on March 31, 2006. [1] 46 Va.App. 545 , 620 S.E.2d 125 (2005). [2] Code § 18.2-268.9 states in relevant part: "This certificate, when attested by the individual conducting the breath test, shall be admissible in any court in any criminal . . . proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated and of the results of such analysis." [3] At oral argument appellant maintained for the first time that the breath test | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2006Does this statute comport with Crawford, supra? | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Roldan
red
2 sentences2005(Emphasis added.) The legislature’s determination that the statements in the breath test are admissible notwithstanding the fact that they are hearsay is wholly consistent with the “flexibility” 5 afforded it by the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford. 6 See People v. Roldan, 35 Cal.4th 646 , 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 , 332 n. 25 (2005) (noting that, “[w]here an offered statement is nontestimonial, states may regulate the admission of evidence by applying their hearsay rules without running afoul of the confrontation clause”), reh’g denied, 2005 Cal. Lexis 6514 (J 2005(Emphasis added.) The legislature’s determination that the statements in the breath test are admissible notwithstanding the fact that they are hearsay is wholly consistent with the “flexibility” 5 afforded it by the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford. 6 See People v. Roldan, 35 Cal.4th 646 , 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 , 332 n. 25 (2005) (noting that, “[w]here an offered statement is nontestimonial, states may regulate the admission of evidence by applying their hearsay rules without running afoul of the confrontation clause”), reh’g denied, 2005 Cal. Lexis 6514 (J | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Rasmussen v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2000If the equipment automatically produces a written printout of the breath test result, the printout, or a copy, shall be given to the accused. - 4 - To implement this statute, Code § 18.2-268.9 provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny individual conducting a breath test under the provisions of [Code] § 18.2-268.2 shall issue a certificate which will indicate . . . that prior to administration of the test the accused was advised of his right to observe the process and see the blood alcohol reading on the equipment used to perform the breath test." In addition, Code § 18.2-268.9 provides that the 2000If the equipment automatically produces a written printout of the breath test result, the printout, or a copy, shall be given to the accused. - 4 - To implement this statute, Code § 18.2-268.9 provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny individual conducting a breath test under the provisions of [Code] § 18.2-268.2 shall issue a certificate which will indicate . . . that prior to administration of the test the accused was advised of his right to observe the process and see the blood alcohol reading on the equipment used to perform the breath test." In addition, Code § 18.2-268.9 provides that the | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.