A. Whenever the original of any official publication or other record has been filed in an action or introduced as evidence, the court may order the original to be returned to its custodian, retaining in its stead a copy thereof. The court may make any order to prevent the improper use of the original.
B. If any department, division, institution, agency, board, or commission of this Commonwealth, of another state or country, or of the United States, or of any political subdivision or agency of the same, acting pursuant to the law of the respective jurisdiction or other proper authority, has copied any record made in the performance of its official duties, such copy shall be as admissible into evidence as the original, whether the original is in existence or not, provided that such copy is authenticated as a true copy either by the custodian of said record or by the person to whom said custodian reports, if they are different, and is accompanied by a certificate that such person does in fact have the custody.
C. If any court or clerk's office of a court of this Commonwealth, of another state or country, or of the United States, or of any political subdivision or agency of the same, has copied any record made in the performance of its official duties, such copy shall be admissible into evidence as the original, whether the original is in existence or not, provided that such copy is authenticated as a true copy by a clerk or deputy clerk of such court.
D. If any business or member of a profession or calling in the regular course of business or activity has made any record or received or transmitted any document, and again in the regular course of business has caused any or all of such record or document to be copied, the copy shall be as admissible in evidence as the original, whether the original exists or not, provided that such copy is satisfactorily identified and authenticated as a true copy by a custodian of such record or by the person to whom said custodian reports, if they be different, and is accompanied by a certificate that said person does in fact have the custody. Such identification and authentication may be made through witness testimony or a certificate by affidavit or by declaration pursuant to § 8.01-4.3, or a combination of witness testimony and a certificate. Copies in the regular course of business shall be deemed to include reproduction at a later time, if done in good faith and without intent to defraud. Copies in the regular course of business shall include items such as checks which are regularly copied before transmission to another person or bank, or records which are acted upon without receipt of the original when the original is retained by another party.
E. The original of which a copy has been made may be destroyed unless its preservation is required by law or its validity has been questioned.
F. The introduction in an action of a copy under this section precludes neither the introduction or admission of the original nor the introduction of a copy or the original in another action.
G. Copy, as used in this section, shall include photographs, microphotographs, photostats, microfilm, microcard, printouts or other reproductions of electronically stored data, or copies from optical disks, electronically transmitted facsimiles, or any other reproduction of an original from a process which forms a durable medium for its recording, storing, and reproducing.
Code 1950, §§ 8-266, 8-267, 8-268, 8-278, 8-279, 8-279.1, 8-279.2; 1950, pp. 604, 640; 1954, c. 333; 1968, c. 723; 1972, cc. 441, 549, 645, 786; 1973, c. 177; 1977, cc. 532, 617; 1978, c. 75; 1979, c. 447; 1989, c. 212; 1990, c. 355; 1991, c. 145; 1992, c. 393; 2000, c. 334; 2012, c. 802; 2014, c. 398.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · 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).
· cites it 80× “2d 662, 664 (1992); see also Charles E. Friend, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 16-4(c) (5th ed.”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 413 S.E.2d 662 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 22× “However, as the Commonwealth itself concedes, Code § 8.01-391, which concerns copies of originals as evidence, is a statutory exception to the best evidence rule, and it is on the specific terms of Code § 8.”
McMillan v. Com., 671 S.E.2d 396 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 5× “The JDR court record to which McMillan objects bears the following certificate: Eighth Judicial District, City of Hampton Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court 220 North King Street Hampton, VA 23669 I, the undersigned clerk or deputy clerk of the above-named court,…”
Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 708 S.E.2d 429 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “01-391(B), any “commission” in Virginia that is acting pursuant to its legal authority may create copies of its records that will be admissible in court if the copy is certified by the commission.”
Sparks v. Commonwealth, 482 S.E.2d 69 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Emanuelson was neither the custodian of the documents nor the supervisor of the custodian of the documents as required by the modern “shopbook” rule and Code § 8.01-391. After a voir dire of Ms.”
Untiedt v. Commonwealth, 447 S.E.2d 537 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 10× “Untiedt objected to the photocopy’s admission on the ground that it did not comport with the requirements of Code § 8.01-391, which he maintained defined the term “true copy” as it appeared in Code § 46.”
Slater v. Commonwealth, 425 S.E.2d 816 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Slater next contends that the Prince William County order should not have been received into evidence because it was not certified as required by Code § 8.01-391. However, that is not the statute that controls admissibility of court records.”
Nikolaos Kollas v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 24× “On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence copies of certificates of tuning fork accuracy because they did not meet the requirements of Code §§ 8.01-391 and 46.2-882 for the admission of copies.”
Rodney Lamar Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “E.2d 735, 741 (2001) (citation omitted). By statute, the General Assembly has provided shortcut methods of authenticating certain types of documents.”
Spruill v. Garcia (ORDER) (Va. 2019).
· cites it 5× “Spruill objected to the authentication of the 2011 medical records because the statement by the records custodian was not sworn to under oath or under penalty of perjury pursuant to Code §§ 8.01-391(D) and 8.01-4.3. Spruill also objected to the admission of the records because…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-391(B) — 11 cases
Williams v. Commonwealth, 546 S.E.2d 735 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
“2d 662, 664 (1992); see also Charles E. Friend, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 16-4(c) (5th ed.”
Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 708 S.E.2d 429 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“01-391(B), any “commission” in Virginia that is acting pursuant to its legal authority may create copies of its records that will be admissible in court if the copy is certified by the commission.”
Untiedt v. Commonwealth, 447 S.E.2d 537 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
“Untiedt objected to the photocopy’s admission on the ground that it did not comport with the requirements of Code § 8.01-391, which he maintained defined the term “true copy” as it appeared in Code § 46.”
Nikolaos Kollas v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence copies of certificates of tuning fork accuracy because they did not meet the requirements of Code §§ 8.01-391 and 46.2-882 for the admission of copies.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-391(C) — 8 cases
McMillan v. Com., 671 S.E.2d 396 (Va. 2009).
“The JDR court record to which McMillan objects bears the following certificate: Eighth Judicial District, City of Hampton Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court 220 North King Street Hampton, VA 23669 I, the undersigned clerk or deputy clerk of the above-named court,…”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 413 S.E.2d 662 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
“However, as the Commonwealth itself concedes, Code § 8.01-391, which concerns copies of originals as evidence, is a statutory exception to the best evidence rule, and it is on the specific terms of Code § 8.”
Untiedt v. Commonwealth, 447 S.E.2d 537 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
“Untiedt objected to the photocopy’s admission on the ground that it did not comport with the requirements of Code § 8.01-391, which he maintained defined the term “true copy” as it appeared in Code § 46.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-391(D) — 3 cases
Sparks v. Commonwealth, 482 S.E.2d 69 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
“Emanuelson was neither the custodian of the documents nor the supervisor of the custodian of the documents as required by the modern “shopbook” rule and Code § 8.01-391. After a voir dire of Ms.”
Spruill v. Garcia (ORDER) (Va. 2019).
“Spruill objected to the authentication of the 2011 medical records because the statement by the records custodian was not sworn to under oath or under penalty of perjury pursuant to Code §§ 8.01-391(D) and 8.01-4.3. Spruill also objected to the admission of the records because…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-391(c) — 1 case
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.