Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 7. Crimes Involving Health and Safety » Article 2. Driving Motor Vehicle, Etc., While Intoxicated
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.11 (2026)

Substantial compliance

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The steps set forth in §§ 18.2-268.2 through 18.2-268.9 relating to taking, handling, identifying, and disposing of blood or breath samples are procedural and not substantive. Substantial compliance shall be sufficient. Failure to comply with any steps or portions thereof shall not of itself be grounds for finding the defendant not guilty, but shall go to the weight of the evidence and shall be considered with all the evidence in the case; however, the defendant shall have the right to introduce evidence on his own behalf to show noncompliance with the aforesaid procedures or any part thereof, and that as a result his rights were prejudiced.

1992, c. 830; 2003, cc. 933, 936.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Cutright v. Commonwealth, 601 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cutright v. Commonwealth, 601 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Instead, Code § 18.2-268.11 states that a violation of the procedural steps of Code §§ 18.”
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 603 S.E.2d 642 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “6 required that when a blood sample was drawn, the arresting officer must give the accused a form setting forth the procedures for obtaining an independent analysis of the blood sample.”
Jeremy Deshawn Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 734 S.E.2d 708 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “The provisions of Code § 18.2-268.11 are relevant at this point.”
Henry v. Commonwealth, 607 S.E.2d 140 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “ANALYSIS Appellant concedes that if the breath test results were properly admitted into evidence, they would be sufficient to convict him of driving under the influence.”
Rollins v. Commonwealth, 554 S.E.2d 99 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Code § 18.2-268.11 provides, in pertinent part: The steps set forth in §§ 18.”
Snider v. Commonwealth, 496 S.E.2d 665 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “shall go to the weight of the evidence and shall be considered with all the evidence in the case; however, the defendant shall have the right to introduce evidence on his own behalf to show noncompliance with the aforesaid procedures or any part thereof, and that as a result his…”
Frank Glading Shelton v. Commonwealth, 609 S.E.2d 89 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “The Commonwealth relies on Code § 18.2-268.11, which allows substantial compliance with the requirements of Code § 18.”
James v. Commonwealth, 446 S.E.2d 900 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Code § 18.2-268.11. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the certificate of breath analysis.”
Roseborough v. Commonwealth, 688 S.E.2d 882 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “" See Code § 18.2-268.11 ("The steps set forth in §§ 18.”
Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 512 S.E.2d 153 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “2d 894, 896 (1974)); see also Code § 18.2-268.11 (providing that substantial compliance with procedures in Code §§ 18.”
Pearson v. Commonwealth, 597 S.E.2d 269 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Code § 18.2-268.11 provides that [t]he steps set forth in §§ 18.”
Artis v. City of Suffolk, 450 S.E.2d 165 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “” Code § 18.2-268.11. The statute further provides that where there is substantial compliance, any deficiency in the required procedures is a matter of weight and sufficiency of the evidence to be determined by the trier of fact.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.