Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-390 (2026)
Nonjudicial records as evidence (Subdivision (10)(a) of Supreme Court Rule 2:803 derived from subsection C of this section)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. Copies of records of this Commonwealth, of another state, of the United States, of another country, or of any political subdivision or agency of the same, other than those located in a clerk's office of a court, shall be received as prima facie evidence, provided that such copies are authenticated to be true copies either by the custodian thereof or by the person to whom the custodian reports, if they are different. A digitally certified copy of a record provided pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 38.2 (§ 2.2-3817 et seq.) of Title 2.2, whether in electronic form or in print form with visible assurance of the digital signature, shall be deemed to be authenticated by the custodian of the record unless evidence is presented to the contrary.
B. Records and recordings of 911 emergency service calls shall be deemed authentic transcriptions or recordings of the original statements if they are accompanied by a certificate that meets the provisions of subsection A and the certificate contains the date and time of the incoming call and the incoming phone number, if available, associated with the call.
C. An affidavit signed by an officer deemed to have custody of such an official record, or by his deputy, stating that after a diligent search, no record or entry of such record is found to exist among the records in his office is admissible as evidence that his office has no such record or entry.
1977, c. 617; 1996, c. 668; 2000, c. 334; 2014, c. 353; 2017, c. 738.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Williams v. Commonwealth, 546 S.E.2d 735 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
Williams v. Commonwealth, 546 S.E.2d 735 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). “Code § 8.01-390 codifies the "official written documents exception" [5] to the hearsay rule and sets forth the method of authentication that allows copies of certain official records of governmental entities to be admitted as prima facie evidence under that exception.”
Ingram v. Commonwealth, 338 S.E.2d 657 (Va. Ct. App. 1986). “He argued that to be admissible the copy or transcript must be doubly authenticated as required by Code § 8.01-390, which provides that copies of state records “shall be received as prima facie evidence provided that such copies are authenticated to be true copies both by the…”
Frank Shop, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 540 S.E.2d 897 (Va. 2001). “Exhibit 1 At trial, Crown offered Exhibit 1 into evidence as a government record under Code § 8.01-390. Frank Shop objected on the grounds that it had not been properly authenticated, it was hearsay, and that it was not a government or public record.”
Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 708 S.E.2d 429 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “The certificate of authentication was issued pursuant to the general *255 authority of the commission—under Code §§ 8.01-390 and 8.01-391 and not pursuant to Code § 65.”
Taylor v. Mar. Overseas Corp., 299 S.E.2d 340 (Va. 1983). “We agree with Taylor that Code § 8.01-390 governs the situation. 1 This section reads: Copies of records of this Commonwealth, of another state, of the United States, of another country, or of any political sub *565 division or agency of the same, other than those located in a…”
Prince Adjei v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 763 S.E.2d 225 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). “Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the law does not require the use of the specific words “custodian” or “person to whom the custodian reports” in order for a certification to meet the requirements of the official records exception.”
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 502 S.E.2d 113 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). “In the same way that "Code § 8.01-390 has codified the official written documents exception [to the hearsay rule] recognized in Virginia for documents or copies of documents that are properly authenticated in accordance with its requirements," Ingram v.”
Hooker v. Commonwealth, 418 S.E.2d 343 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). “2d at 539-40 ; Code § 8.01-390. 1 In this case, no foundation was laid for admitting either the report or the computer information under the business records exception or the official records exception to the hearsay rule.”
Carroll v. Commonwealth, 396 S.E.2d 137 (Va. Ct. App. 1990). “2d 340 (1983), the Court held that a Coast Guard “Boiler Inspection Book” was not admissible because it had not been properly authenticated pursuant to the requirements of Code § 8.01-390. 3 Id. at 565, 299 S.E.2d at 342 .”
Shropshire v. Commonwealth, 577 S.E.2d 521 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “[1] Shropshire alleged two other errors by the trial court: (1) that a continuance granted the Commonwealth violated his due process rights and (2) the use of an affidavit under Code § 8.01-390(B) violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause.”
Dickens v. Commonwealth, 663 S.E.2d 548 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). “Code § 8.01-390(B) provides, in relevant part: An affidavit signed by an officer deemed to have custody of such an official record, or by his deputy, stating that after a diligent search, no record or entry of such record is found to exist among the records in his office is…”
Smith v. Woodlawn Const. Co., Inc., 368 S.E.2d 699 (Va. 1988). “Although we have found that the commissioner and the trial court erred in requiring proof of the value of the land before deciding the remaining issues, we decide the issue of the admissibility of the tax assessor’s strip file for guidance in the future proceedings in this suit.…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-390(A) — 10 cases
Williams v. Commonwealth, 546 S.E.2d 735 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). “Code § 8.01-390 codifies the "official written documents exception" [5] to the hearsay rule and sets forth the method of authentication that allows copies of certain official records of governmental entities to be admitted as prima facie evidence under that exception.”
Prince Adjei v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 763 S.E.2d 225 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). “Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the law does not require the use of the specific words “custodian” or “person to whom the custodian reports” in order for a certification to meet the requirements of the official records exception.”
Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 708 S.E.2d 429 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “The certificate of authentication was issued pursuant to the general *255 authority of the commission—under Code §§ 8.01-390 and 8.01-391 and not pursuant to Code § 65.”
Frank Shop, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 540 S.E.2d 897 (Va. 2001). “Exhibit 1 At trial, Crown offered Exhibit 1 into evidence as a government record under Code § 8.01-390. Frank Shop objected on the grounds that it had not been properly authenticated, it was hearsay, and that it was not a government or public record.”
Markquall Antwoine Canada v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-390(B) — 3 cases
Shropshire v. Commonwealth, 577 S.E.2d 521 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “[1] Shropshire alleged two other errors by the trial court: (1) that a continuance granted the Commonwealth violated his due process rights and (2) the use of an affidavit under Code § 8.01-390(B) violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause.”
Dickens v. Commonwealth, 663 S.E.2d 548 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). “Code § 8.01-390(B) provides, in relevant part: An affidavit signed by an officer deemed to have custody of such an official record, or by his deputy, stating that after a diligent search, no record or entry of such record is found to exist among the records in his office is…”
Markquall Antwoine Canada v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
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.