Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-187 (2026)

Admission into evidence of certain certificates of analysis

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. In any hearing or trial of any criminal offense or in any proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 22.1 (§ 19.2-386.1 et seq.), a certificate of analysis of a person performing an analysis or examination, duly attested by such person, shall be admissible in evidence as evidence of the facts therein stated and the results of the analysis or examination referred to therein, provided that (i) the certificate of analysis is filed with the clerk of the court hearing the case at least seven days prior to the proceeding if the attorney for the Commonwealth intends to offer it into evidence in a preliminary hearing or the accused intends to offer it into evidence in any hearing or trial, or (ii) the requirements of subsection A of § 19.2-187.1 have been satisfied and the accused has not objected to the admission of the certificate pursuant to subsection B of § 19.2-187.1, when any such analysis or examination is performed in any laboratory operated by the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services or the Department of Forensic Science or authorized by such Department to conduct such analysis or examination, or performed by a person licensed by the Department of Forensic Science pursuant to § 18.2-268.9 or 46.2-341.26:9 to conduct such analysis or examination, or performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Service, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, the Forensic Document Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or the U.S. Secret Service Laboratory. 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.

B. In a hearing or trial in which the provisions of subsection A of § 19.2-187.1 do not apply, a copy of such certificate shall be mailed or delivered by the clerk or attorney for the Commonwealth to counsel of record for the accused at no charge at least seven days prior to the hearing or trial upon request made by such counsel to the clerk with notice of the request to the attorney for the Commonwealth. The request to the clerk shall be on a form prescribed by the Supreme Court and filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or trial. In the event that a request for a copy of a certificate is filed with the clerk with respect to a case that is not yet before the court, the clerk shall advise the requester that he must resubmit the request at such time as the case is properly before the court in order for such request to be effective. If, upon proper request made by counsel of record for the accused, a copy of such certificate is not mailed or delivered by the clerk or attorney for the Commonwealth to counsel of record for the accused in a timely manner in accordance with this section, the accused shall be entitled to continue the hearing or trial.

C. The certificate of analysis of any examination conducted by the Department of Forensic Science relating to a controlled substance or marijuana shall be mailed or forwarded by personnel of the Department of Forensic Science to the attorney for the Commonwealth of the jurisdiction where such offense may be heard. The attorney for the Commonwealth shall acknowledge receipt of the certificate on forms provided by the laboratory.

Any such certificate of analysis purporting to be signed, either by hand or by electronic means, 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 attestation signature of a person performing the analysis or examination may be either hand or electronically signed.

D. Any testimony offered by either party in a preliminary hearing or sentencing hearing, or offered by the accused in any hearing other than a trial, from a person who performed an analysis or examination that resulted in a certificate of analysis may be presented by two-way video conferencing. The two-way video testimony permitted by this section shall comply with the provisions of subsection B of § 19.2-3.1. In addition, unless otherwise agreed by the parties and the court, (i) all orders pertaining to witnesses apply to witnesses testifying by video conferencing; (ii) upon request, all materials read or used by the witness during his testimony shall be identified on the video; and (iii) any witness testifying by video conferencing shall certify at the conclusion of his testimony, under penalty of perjury, that he did not engage in any off-camera communications with any person during his testimony.

E. For the purposes of this section and §§ 19.2-187.01, 19.2-187.1, and 19.2-187.2, the term "certificate of analysis" includes reports of analysis and results of laboratory examination.

F. Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a locality to purchase a two-way electronic video and audio communication system. Any decision to purchase such a system is at the discretion of the locality.

Code 1950, § 19.1-106.1; 1974, c. 200; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 245; 1983, c. 178; 1984, c. 607; 1988, c. 494; 1990, cc. 737, 825; 1992, c. 56; 1994, cc. 41, 375; 1995, c. 437; 1999, c. 296; 2000, c. 336; 2002, c. 832; 2005, cc. 868, 881; 2006, c. 294; 2009, Sp. Sess. I, cc. 1, 4; 2010, c. 656; 2011, cc. 384, 410, 645; 2014, cc. 328, 674, 719; 2015, cc. 75, 126; 2017, c. 669; 2019, cc. 478, 479.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 112 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Magruder v. Com., 657 S.E.2d 113 (Va. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Magruder v. Com., 657 S.E.2d 113 (Va. 2008). · cites it 33× “In each of these appeals, the defendant claims that the admission into evidence, pursuant to Code § 19.2-187, of a certificate of analysis in the absence of testimony at trial from the person who performed the particular analysis and prepared the certificate yiolated his rights…”

Taylor v. Commonwealth, 502 S.E.2d 113 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 52× “He contends the trial court erred (1) by admitting into evidence the date stamp on a certificate of drug analysis apparently affixed when the certificate was received by an employee of the trial court's clerk's office, and (2) by admitting the certificate of drug analysis itself…”

Cregger v. Commonwealth, 486 S.E.2d 554 (Va. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 92× “On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted a "Certificate of Breath Alcohol Analysis" (certificate) into evidence, a copy of which had not been provided to him by the attorney for the Commonwealth in accordance with Code § 19.2-187. Finding no error,…”

Bell v. Commonwealth, 622 S.E.2d 751 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 45× “On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in admitting the certificate of analysis establishing the substances were marijuana and cocaine because his attorney requested the certificate in the manner provided for in Code § 19.2-187 and the evidence failed to show “a copy of…”

Gray v. Commonwealth, 265 S.E.2d 705 (Va. 1980). · cites it 30× “We awarded him an appeal limited to the question whether a certificate of drug analysis was "admissible into evidence pursuant to Code § 19.2-187." [*] The record shows that on July 13, 1978, a vehicle operated by the defendant collided with a police cruiser in the town of Front…”

Myrick v. Commonwealth, 412 S.E.2d 176 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 28× “He contends on appeal: (1) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the certificate of drug analysis in violation of Code § 19.2-187; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.”

Thomas Pope, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 729 S.E.2d 751 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 16× “In his motion, appellant asserted that this certificate did not comply with the requirements of Code § 19.2-187 because it was not signed by the person who performed the examination of the DNA.”

Bolden v. Commonwealth, 640 S.E.2d 526 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 14× “Second, Bolden noted that the Commonwealth filed its certificate of analysis of the drug evidence only five days before the original October 3 trial date, not seven days as required by Code § 19.”

Frere v. Commonwealth, 452 S.E.2d 682 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 32× “He argues the certificate of analysis was improperly admitted into evidence under Code § 19.2-187 because (1) it contained a signature but no attestation clause, and (2) it was a photocopy of the original.”

Bell v. Commonwealth, 643 S.E.2d 497 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 20× “During Bell’s October 5, 2004 trial, the court admitted the certificate of analysis into evidence over Bell’s objection, which was based on the Commonwealth’s failure to comply with the mailing requirements of Code § 19.2-187. 1 The trial court then *574 convicted Bell of both…”

Brooks v. Commonwealth, 638 S.E.2d 131 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 21× “By letter of October 22, 2004, in response to appellant’s motion for discovery and with a copy of the letter to the court, the Commonwealth provided appellant’s counsel with copies of those certificates of analysis, expressly indicating they were being “provided in accordance…”

Williams v. Commonwealth, 546 S.E.2d 735 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 20× “The document whose admissibility is at issue here is a photocopy of the original certificate of analysis.”

Show all 112 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-187(A) — 1 case

James Wesley Amonett, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 823 S.E.2d 504 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).

— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-187(B) — 2 cases

Cindy Lynn Whitehurst v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 754 S.E.2d 910 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).

Robel Abebe Getachew v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024).

— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-187(i) — 2 cases

Ermais Samson v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2017).

Christopher Holmes, s/k/a Christopher Sean Holmes v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-187(ii) — 5 cases

Bottoms v. Commonwealth, 457 S.E.2d 796 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).

Ermais Samson v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2017).

Christopher Holmes, s/k/a Christopher Sean Holmes v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

Zachary S. Lewis v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2001).

Larry Wayne Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

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.