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.
7 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2012 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brooks v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2008Pursuant to Code § 19.2-187.1, an accused has “the right to call the person performing such analysis or examination or involved in the chain of custody as a witness therein, and examine him in the same manner as if he had been called as an adverse witness.” In Brooks v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 155, 168-69 , 638 S.E.2d 131, 138 (2006), we held—with respect to evidence admitted pursuant to Code § 19.2-187—that the constitutional right to confrontation is subject to waiver when an accused fails to avail himself of his statutory right to subpoena the person who performed the analysis. 2008Pursuant to Code § 19.2-187.1, an accused has “the right to call the person performing such analysis or examination or involved in the chain of custody as a witness therein, and examine him in the same manner as if he had been called as an adverse witness.” In Brooks v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 155, 168-69 , 638 S.E.2d 131, 138 (2006), we held—with respect to evidence admitted pursuant to Code § 19.2-187—that the constitutional right to confrontation is subject to waiver when an accused fails to avail himself of his statutory right to subpoena the person who performed the analysis. | 1 | 2 |
Galbraith v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2012In practice, it “provides a basis for admitting into evidence the results of an analysis performed by [DFS] ... when the certificate showing the results is attested by the person who performed the test.” Galbraith v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 734, 740 , 446 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1994). 2012In practice, it “provides a basis for admitting into evidence the results of an analysis performed by [DFS] ... when the certificate showing the results is attested by the person who performed the test.” Galbraith v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 734, 740 , 446 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Thus, the court held that, "where a defendant is represented by counsel, the failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites ... waives the defendant's right to confront the witness just as the decision to forgo cross-examination at trial would waive that right." Id. at 670 ; see also Brown, 939 So.2d at 961 (failure to make a timely objection in accordance with statutory requirements to the admissibility of a certificate of analysis waived the issue for appeal); Cunningham, 903 So.2d at 1121 (finding that the defendant's failure to follow statutory procedure and subpoena the person who per | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cunninghamgreen1 sentence2008Thus, the court held that, "where a defendant is represented by counsel, the failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites ... waives the defendant's right to confront the witness just as the decision to forgo cross-examination at trial would waive that right." Id. at 670 ; see also Brown, 939 So.2d at 961 (failure to make a timely objection in accordance with statutory requirements to the admissibility of a certificate of analysis waived the issue for appeal); Cunningham, 903 So.2d at 1121 (finding that the defendant's failure to follow statutory procedure and subpoena the person who per | 1 | 1 |
Rodgers v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1984See generally Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 197 Va. 527, 529-31 , 90 S.E.2d 257, 259-60 (1955). 1984See generally Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 197 Va. 527, 529-31 , 90 S.E.2d 257, 259-60 (1955). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Magruder v. Com.
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 304, 657 S.E.2d at 124 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh
green
2 sentences2008Thus, the court held that, "where a defendant is represented by counsel, the failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites ... waives the defendant's right to confront the witness just as the decision to forgo cross-examination at trial would waive that right." Id. at 670 ; see also Brown, 939 So.2d at 961 (failure to make a timely objection in accordance with statutory requirements to the admissibility of a certificate of analysis waived the issue for appeal); Cunningham, 903 So.2d at 1121 (finding that the defendant's failure to follow statutory procedure and subpoena the person who per 2008Thus, the court held that, "where a defendant is represented by counsel, the failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites ... waives the defendant's right to confront the witness just as the decision to forgo cross-examination at trial would waive that right." Id. at 670 ; see also Brown, 939 So.2d at 961 (failure to make a timely objection in accordance with statutory requirements to the admissibility of a certificate of analysis waived the issue for appeal); Cunningham, 903 So.2d at 1121 (finding that the defendant's failure to follow statutory procedure and subpoena the person who per | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Campbell
green
1 sentence2008Thus, the court held that, "where a defendant is represented by counsel, the failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites ... waives the defendant's right to confront the witness just as the decision to forgo cross-examination at trial would waive that right." Id. at 670 ; see also Brown, 939 So.2d at 961 (failure to make a timely objection in accordance with statutory requirements to the admissibility of a certificate of analysis waived the issue for appeal); Cunningham, 903 So.2d at 1121 (finding that the defendant's failure to follow statutory procedure and subpoena the person who per | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Deener v. State
green
1 sentence2008Thus, the court held that, "where a defendant is represented by counsel, the failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites ... waives the defendant's right to confront the witness just as the decision to forgo cross-examination at trial would waive that right." Id. at 670 ; see also Brown, 939 So.2d at 961 (failure to make a timely objection in accordance with statutory requirements to the admissibility of a certificate of analysis waived the issue for appeal); Cunningham, 903 So.2d at 1121 (finding that the defendant's failure to follow statutory procedure and subpoena the person who per | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Essex v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.