Every law-enforcement officer who has arrested any person for (i) driving while under the influence of intoxicants or drugs in violation of § 18.2-51.4 or § 18.2-266 or a parallel local ordinance, or § 46.2-341.24, (ii) reckless driving in violation of §§ 46.2-852 through 46.2-865 or a parallel local ordinance, (iii) failure to stop at the scene of an accident in violation of §§ 46.2-894 through 46.2-899 or a parallel local ordinance or (iv) driving without a license or while his license has been suspended or revoked in violation of § 18.2-51.4 or § 18.2-272, or §§ 46.2-300 through 46.2-302 or a parallel local ordinance or while he is disqualified in violation of § 46.2-341.21 of the Commercial Vehicle Driver's License Act (§ 46.2-341.1 et seq.), shall request from the Department an abstract or transcript of the person's driver's conviction record on file at the Department. The Department shall furnish the abstract or transcript to the attorney for the Commonwealth of the jurisdiction in which the case will be heard, to be held available for the court in which the person is to be tried for the violation or charge. However, the failure of the attorney for the Commonwealth to receive the abstract or transcript in any case shall not constitute grounds for the granting of a continuance of such case. In any such prosecution wherein a necessary element of the offense charged is that the defendant was previously convicted of the same or similar offense, a copy, certified as provided in § 46.2-215, of (1) the abstract of the relevant prior conviction, certified as provided in § 46.2-386, or (2) that portion of the transcript relating to the relevant prior conviction, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein with respect to the prior offense.
1968, c. 335, § 46.1-413.1; 1976, c. 148; 1984, c. 780; 1988, c. 413; 1989, cc. 705, 727; 1992, c. 838; 1997, c. 691.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case:
Nicely v. Commonwealth, 490 S.E.2d 281 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
Nicely v. Commonwealth, 490 S.E.2d 281 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “shall request from the [DMV] an abstract or transcript of the person’s driver’s conviction record on file at the [DMV]---- In any such prosecution wherein a necessary element of the offense charged is that the defendant was previously convicted of the same or similar offense, .”
Ngomondjami v. Commonwealth, 678 S.E.2d 281 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 46.2-384; see also Mwangi v. Commonwealth, 277 Va.”
Chiquita Lynette Parker v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 34× “Appellant raised four objections to its admission: (1) that the procedure by which the Commonwealth obtained the transcript violated the procedure set forth in Code § 46.2-384, rendering it inadmissible; (2) that the presence of an inaccurate notation in the transcript, despite…”
Kevin Ray Mitchem v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 16× “Specifically, appellant argues the presumption of validity given to DMV transcripts, articulated in Code § 46.2-384, and the burden on appellant to rebut this presumption, violates his right to due process and his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to…”
Bryan Temple Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 8× “Code § 46.2-384. When a person is convicted of a motor-vehicle offense, the clerk of the general district court or circuit court in which the conviction is rendered must “forward an abstract of the record to the [DMV] Commissioner within 18 days after such conviction.”
Commonwealth v. Carter, 80 Va. Cir. 527 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 7× “Va. Code §46.2-384. However, DMV clerks uploaded the information comprising the transcript during the regular course of business and for regulatory purposes, and the computer system itself determined habitual offender status based on prior offenses.”
Jose A. Acuna v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “The defendant’s driving record was admissible pursuant to Code § 46.2-384, and its admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause.”
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.