A. Reports of investigations made by the Chief Medical Examiner, his assistants or medical examiners, and the records and certified reports of autopsies made under the authority of Title 32.1, shall be received as evidence in any court or other proceeding, and copies of photographs, laboratory findings and reports in the office of the Chief Medical Examiner or any medical examiner, when duly attested by the Chief Medical Examiner or one of his Assistant Chief Medical Examiners, shall be received as evidence in any court or other proceeding for any purpose for which the original could be received without proof of the official character or the person whose name is signed thereto.
B. Any statement of fact or of opinion in such reports and records concerning the physical or medical cause of death and not alleging any conduct by the accused shall be admissible as competent evidence of the cause of death in any preliminary hearing.
Code 1950, § 19.1-45; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 2003, c. 459; 2009, c. 640.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Quintana v. Commonwealth, 295 S.E.2d 643 (Va. 1982).
Quintana v. Commonwealth, 295 S.E.2d 643 (Va. 1982).
· cites it 4× “Sheehy said that his medical findings "would be consistent with the death from as early as 8:00 to 10:00 o'clock in the morning".”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 590 S.E.2d 520 (Va. 2004).
· cites it 2× “*204 Although Code § 19.2-188 provides that “[r]eports of investigations made by the Chief Medical Examiner, his assistants or medical examiners .”
Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 459 U.S. 1288 (1982).
· cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-188 provides a statutory exception to the hearsay rule by permitting investigation reports and autopsy reports of the Chief Medical Examiner or his assistants to be received in evidence without requiring the investigating official to testify.”
Gray v. Commonwealth, 484 U.S. 873 (1987).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, Code § 19.2-188 authorizes the admission of the report.”
Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 337 S.E.2d 264 (Va. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The Murder Trial—Record No. 840660. In the trial of the murder charge, Hopkins objected to admission of Kagey’s dental identification evidence through the medical examiner’s testimony or the autopsy report.”
Bond v. Commonwealth, 311 S.E.2d 769 (Va. 1984).
· cites it 3× “Screen for drugs was negative. Defendant objected to the admission of this language on the ground it was an expression of opinion based upon hearsay.”
Abney v. Commonwealth, 657 S.E.2d 796 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Abney further asserts that Code § 19.2-188, which provides for the admissibility of an autopsy report made by a medical examiner without requiring the examiner to testify, was rendered unconstitutional under the holding in Crawford .”
Lilly v. Commonwealth, 499 S.E.2d 522 (Va. 1998).
· cites it 2× “The Commonwealth responds that the trial court excluded from evidence a local medical examiner’s report, admitting only the report prepared by the proponent or his staff.”
Lucas v. Riverhill Poultry, Inc., 300 Va. 78 (Va. 2021).
· cites it 19× “2, we have on several occasions construed and applied Code § 19.2-188, which is the materially identical 5 criminal counterpart of Code § 8.”
Vatter v. Woodson (W.D. Va. 2022).
· cites it 14× “cess rights because he was not given credit for his “good time” credits while in the regional jail; (2) Ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not argue to the jury that less weight should be given to the toxicology report because of the lack of chain of custody;…”
James Ray Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 5× “At the close of all the evidence, Williams proffered jury instructions that would have allowed the jury to convict him of the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and 4 Under Code § 19.2-188, a medical examiner’s autopsy report, when “duly attested,” is admissible in…”
Ronald Wayne Lewis v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Similarly, "Code § 19.2-188 provides a statutory exception to the hearsay rule by permitting investigation reports and autopsy reports of the Chief Medical Examiner or his assistants to be received in evidence without requiring the investigating official to testify.”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-188(A): 2 cases
James Ray Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
“At the close of all the evidence, Williams proffered jury instructions that would have allowed the jury to convict him of the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and 4 Under Code § 19.2-188, a medical examiner’s autopsy report, when “duly attested,” is admissible in…”
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.