Whenever any record, including records maintained by electronic media, by photographic processes, or paper, in the office of the Department is admissible in evidence, a copy, a machine-produced transcript, or a photograph of the record or paper attested by the Commissioner or his designee may be admitted as evidence in lieu of the original. In any case in which the records are transmitted by electronic means a machine imprint of the Commissioner's name purporting to authenticate the record shall be the equivalent of attestation or certification by the Commissioner.
Any copy, transcript, photograph, or any certification purporting to be sealed or sealed and signed by the Commissioner or his designee or imprinted with the Commissioner's name may be admitted as evidence without any proof of the seal or signature or of the official character of the person whose name is signed thereto. If an issue as to the authenticity of any information transmitted by electronic means is raised, the court shall require that a record attested by the Commissioner or his designee be submitted for admission into evidence.
1962, c. 368, § 46.1-34.1; 1966, c. 196; 1986, c. 607; 1988, c. 427; 1989, c. 727.
Notes of Decisions
Nesselrodt v. Commonwealth, 452 S.E.2d 676 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 28× “Attached to each information was a document prepared by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles and certified in the manner provided by Code § 46.2-215. Two of these documents were designated "Abstract of Driver History" (Nesselrodt and Scott).”
Hall v. Commonwealth, 421 S.E.2d 887 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 20× “2-355, we hold that the trial judge did not err by admitting it as part of the DMV transcript and abstract of Hall’s driving record as properly authenticated in accordance with Code § 46.2-215. Further, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Hall unlawfully…”
Jasper v. Commonwealth, 644 S.E.2d 406 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “” The transcript contained the following attestation clause: *752 This is to certify, in accordance with Section 46.2-215 of the Code of Virginia, that this machine produced transcript, transmitted by electronic means to CA RD Short is an accurate depiction of the driving record…”
Jeffrey Wayne Burchett v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 496 S.E.2d 154 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“2-352 provided: The Commissioner shall certify, from the Department’s records, substantially in the manner provided for in § 46.2-215, three transcripts or abstracts of those conviction documents which bring the person named therein within the definition of an habitual offender,…”
Chiquita Lynette Parker v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0303161 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).
· cites it 3× “Code § 46.2-215, titled “Certification of certain records and admissibility in evidence,” provides: Whenever any record, including records maintained by electronic media, by photographic processes, or paper, in the office of the Department is admissible in evidence, a copy, a…”
Lester Frizzell Morris, Jr. v. Commonwealth of VA, No. 2905002 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2002).
· cites it 4× “The trial court agreed the record contained no subpoena for Garrett and noted, as a result, that "there is no evidence that [Garrett] was not available.”
Daniel George Fahlfeder v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 2283004 (Va. Ct. App. June 26, 2001).
· cites it 4× “One manner in which the Commonwealth may prove an accused has been declared an habitual offender, continues in that status, and has knowledge of his status is "to prove through the records of the DMV that [appellant] had been declared an habitual offender" so long as the DMV…”
Commonwealth v. Wieland, 22 Va. Cir. 394 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 5× “2-352 provides, in pertinent part, that the "Commissioner shall certify, from the Department’s records, substantially in the manner provided for in Section 46.2-215, three transcripts or abstracts of those conviction documents which bring the person named therein within the…”
Kevin Ray Mitchem v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0734092 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2010).
· cites it 3× “2-384, the legislature, in its wisdom, determined that a DMV transcript, certified pursuant to Code § 46.2-215, “shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein with respect to the prior offense.”
Troy Jacobs v. commonwealth, No. 0874024 (Va. Ct. App. July 8, 2003).
· cites it 2× “The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles certified that the single page facsimile transmission was an accurate depiction of the digital image for the "customer" with that number as maintained by the department.”
Commonwealth v. Carter, 80 Va. Cir. 527 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “) The certificate reads as follows: This is to certify, in accordance with Section 46.2-215 of the Code of Virginia, that this machine produced transcript, transmitted by electronic means to Aca L.”
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.