person performing analysis in Virginia

2015Dunn v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 217, 220 , 456 S.E.2d 135, 136 (1995) ("Code § 19.2-187 permits the Commonwealth to introduce into evidence at trial a certificate of analysis 'of a person performing an analysis or examination, performed in any laboratory operated by ... the Division of Forensic Science.' ”). .

2015Dunn v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 217, 220 , 456 S.E.2d 135, 136 (1995) ("Code § 19.2-187 permits the Commonwealth to introduce into evidence at trial a certificate of analysis 'of a person performing an analysis or examination, performed in any laboratory operated by ... the Division of Forensic Science.' ”). .

2015A higher standard is applied, however, in the context of alleged violations of constitutional rights. “[W]hether a defendant’s due process rights are violated by the admission of evidence is a question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review.” Id. (citing Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Smit, 279 Va. 327, 335 , 689 S.E.2d 679, 684 (2010)).

2015A higher standard is applied, however, in the context of alleged violations of constitutional rights. “[W]hether a defendant’s due process rights are violated by the admission of evidence is a question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review.” Id. (citing Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Smit, 279 Va. 327, 335 , 689 S.E.2d 679, 684 (2010)).

2015Dunn v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 217, 220 , 456 S.E.2d 135, 136 (1995) (“Code § 19.2-187 permits the Commonwealth to introduce into evidence at trial a certificate of analysis ‘of a person performing an analysis or examination, performed in any laboratory operated by . . . the Division of Forensic Science.’”). -3- discretion.’” Henderson v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 318 , 329, 736 S.E.2d 901 , 907 (2013) (quoting Beck v. Commonwealth, 253 Va. 373, 384-85 , 484 S.E.2d 898, 905 (1997)).

2015Dunn v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 217, 220 , 456 S.E.2d 135, 136 (1995) (“Code § 19.2-187 permits the Commonwealth to introduce into evidence at trial a certificate of analysis ‘of a person performing an analysis or examination, performed in any laboratory operated by . . . the Division of Forensic Science.’”). -3- discretion.’” Henderson v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 318 , 329, 736 S.E.2d 901 , 907 (2013) (quoting Beck v. Commonwealth, 253 Va. 373, 384-85 , 484 S.E.2d 898, 905 (1997)).

2009As appellant notes, “The statute further provides that the ‘signature of the person who received the material ... on the request for laboratory examination form shall be deemed prima facie evidence that the person receiving the material was an authorized agent.’ ” Harshaw v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 69, 72 , 427 S.E.2d 733, 735 (1993) (quoting Code § 19.2-187.01).

2009As appellant notes, “The statute further provides that the ‘signature of the person who received the material ... on the request for laboratory examination form shall be deemed prima facie evidence that the person receiving the material was an authorized agent.’ ” Harshaw v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 69, 72 , 427 S.E.2d 733, 735 (1993) (quoting Code § 19.2-187.01).

2009Code § 19.2-187.01 authorizes a trial court to receive a certificate of analysis as evidence of the chain of custody of the material tested____ [T]he statute provides that a “report of analysis duly attested by the person performing such analysis or examination in any laboratory operated by ... the Division of Forensic Science or any of its regional laboratories ... shall be prima facie evidence in a criminal ... proceeding as to the custody of the material described therein from the time such material is received by an authorized agent of such laboratory until such material is released subseq

2009Code § 19.2-187.01 authorizes a trial court to receive a certificate of analysis as evidence of the chain of custody of the material tested____ [T]he statute provides that a “report of analysis duly attested by the person performing such analysis or examination in any laboratory operated by ... the Division of Forensic Science or any of its regional laboratories ... shall be prima facie evidence in a criminal ... proceeding as to the custody of the material described therein from the time such material is received by an authorized agent of such laboratory until such material is released subseq

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.

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.

2005The request to the clerk shall be on a form prescribed by the Supreme Court and filed with the clerk at least ten days prior to trial. *135 2002 Va. Acts, ch. 832. 2 This statute “imposes a condition for the exoneration of an otherwise hearsay document from the application of the hearsay rule, thus making that document admissible.” Basfield v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 122, 124 , 398 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1990).

2005The request to the clerk shall be on a form prescribed by the Supreme Court and filed with the clerk at least ten days prior to trial. *135 2002 Va. Acts, ch. 832. 2 This statute “imposes a condition for the exoneration of an otherwise hearsay document from the application of the hearsay rule, thus making that document admissible.” Basfield v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 122, 124 , 398 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1990).

1999"The weight which should be given to evidence and whether the testimony of a witness is credible are ¹ Code § 19.2-187.01 specifically provides that "[a] report of analysis duly attested by the person performing such analysis or examination in any [authorized] laboratory . . . shall be prima facie evidence in a criminal or civil proceeding as to the custody of the material described therein from the time such material is received by an authorized agent of such laboratory until such material is released subsequent to such analysis or examination." Alvarez, 24 Va. App. at 777-78 , 485 S.E.2d at

1999"The weight which should be given to evidence and whether the testimony of a witness is credible are ¹ Code § 19.2-187.01 specifically provides that "[a] report of analysis duly attested by the person performing such analysis or examination in any [authorized] laboratory . . . shall be prima facie evidence in a criminal or civil proceeding as to the custody of the material described therein from the time such material is received by an authorized agent of such laboratory until such material is released subsequent to such analysis or examination." Alvarez, 24 Va. App. at 777-78 , 485 S.E.2d at