A report of analysis duly attested by the person performing such analysis or examination in any laboratory operated by (i) the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services, the Department of Forensic Science or any of its regional laboratories, or by any laboratory authorized by such Division or Department to conduct such analysis or examination; (ii) the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (iii) the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; (iv) the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; (v) the federal Drug Enforcement Administration; (vi) the United States Postal Service; (vii) the U.S. Secret Service; or (viii) the Forensic Document Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 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. Any such certificate of analysis purporting to be signed by any such person shall be admissible as evidence in such hearing or trial without any proof of the seal or signature or of the official character of the person whose name is signed to it. The signature of the person who received the material for the laboratory on the request for laboratory examination form or evidence submission receipt, either by hand or by electronic means, shall be deemed prima facie evidence that the person receiving the material was an authorized agent and that such receipt constitutes proper receipt by the laboratory for purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, any laboratory that has entered into a contract with the Department of Forensic Science for the provision of forensic laboratory services shall be deemed authorized by the Department to conduct such analyses or examinations.
1979, c. 364; 1989, c. 458; 1990, cc. 548, 825; 1991, c. 687; 1993, c. 32; 1994, c. 375; 1995, c. 437; 2005, cc. 868, 881; 2011, c. 645; 2015, cc. 75, 126; 2019, cc. 478, 479; 2024, c. 210.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
40
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case:
Anderson v. Com., 650 S.E.2d 702 (Va. 2007).
Anderson v. Com., 650 S.E.2d 702 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 18× “Based on this objection, Anderson argues that his constitutional right of confrontation was violated upon admission of the certificate of analysis linking Anderson to Berry's attack and the statutory presumption contained in Code § 19.2-187.01 providing that the duly attested…”
Anderson v. Commonwealth, 634 S.E.2d 372 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 10× “Any use of Code § 19.2-187.01’s inference violates his confrontation rights, Anderson contends.”
Hargrove v. Commonwealth, 673 S.E.2d 896 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “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 .”
Dunn v. Commonwealth, 456 S.E.2d 135 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 12× “Code § 19.2-187.01 reheves the Commonwealth of having to present testimony regarding the chain of custody of an analyzed or examined substance, provided certain safeguards are met.”
Alvarez v. Commonwealth, 485 S.E.2d 646 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 9× “” He further asserts that the Commonwealth could not rely upon Code § 19.2-187.01 to prove the chain of custody within the laboratory in which the marijuana was analyzed.”
Jeter v. Commonwealth, 607 S.E.2d 734 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Jeter, citing Code § 19.2-187.01, concedes that “there is no argument concerning the absence of testimony on how the suspect envelope got from Mr.”
Herndon v. Com., 694 S.E.2d 618 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Code § 19.2-187.01. Code § 19.2-187.01 provides, in pertinent part: *621 A report of analysis duly attested by the person performing such analysis or examination in any laboratory operated by .”
Crews v. Commonwealth, 442 S.E.2d 407 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Code § 19.2-187.01. Once the integrity of the chain is properly established and the remaining provisions of Code §§ 19.”
Harshaw v. Commonwealth, 427 S.E.2d 733 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “” Code § 19.2-187.01 provides that a “report of analysis .”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 529 S.E.2d 769 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Johnson presented no evidence to overcome the Commonwealth’s introduction of this prima facie evidence, or the direct evidence of actual custody of the blood sample.”
Jasper v. Commonwealth, 644 S.E.2d 406 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2d 372, 376-77 (2006) (holding provision in Code § 19.2-187.01 authorizing trial court to receive duly attested certificate of analysis performed by certain laboratory facilities as prima facie evidence of chain of custody of material tested does not violate Confrontation Clause…”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Cmty. Alternatives, Inc., 705 S.E.2d 530 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-187.01, for example, considers certificates of analysis issued by the “Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services, the Department of Forensic Science or any of its regional laboratories, or by any laboratory authorized by such Division or Department, .”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-187.01(i) — 1 case
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.