COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
WILLIE RANDY WALLER
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 0800-97-2 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA
MARCH 31, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG
John W. Scott, Jr., Judge
John F. Wilkinson, Assistant Public Defender,
for appellant.
Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General
(Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
Willie Randy Waller (appellant) was convicted of
distributing cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-248. On appeal,
appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting a
certificate of analysis of the cocaine in violation of the
statutory requirements. Finding no error, we affirm his
conviction.
On October 30, 1996, Officer Lloyd Holland observed the
driver of a car, later identified as Larry Lewis (buyer), give
money to appellant in exchange for a small object. Holland
testified that from his vantage point, he "couldn't say . . .
that for sure that it was a rock of crack cocaine, but I
suspected it to be so." At Holland's direction, other officers,
including Officer William Hallam, followed and stopped Lewis'
car. After the officers stopped him, Lewis gave the officers
some items which the officers believed to be crack cocaine. The
officers returned and arrested appellant.
At trial, Hallam testified that he sent the suspected
cocaine to the Bureau of Forensic Science for testing. After
establishing the chain of custody, the Commonwealth moved to
admit a copy of a certificate of analysis from the Bureau of
Forensic Science that certified the substance was cocaine.
Appellant objected on the basis that the certificate did not
satisfy the requirements of Code § 19.2-187, governing the
admission of certificates of analysis in the absence of the
preparer's testimony. Specifically, appellant argued that the
clerk's date stamp on the certificate was illegible and
accordingly did not establish that the certificate was filed with
the clerk seven days prior to trial. He also contended that the
stamp, which related to the date the certificate was filed in
buyer's file, did not show that the certificate had ever been
filed in appellant's file.
The court overruled his objection, and found that the
certificate had been filed under buyer's name, with no
cross-reference to appellant's name, "on February 21, 1997 in the
Clerk's office of this court." After admitting the certificate
and hearing further evidence, the court found appellant guilty of
distribution of cocaine.
I.
Evidence of Filing
-2-
Appellant argues that the court's admission of the
certificate of analysis violated Code § 19.2-187 because the
stamp on the certificate was illegible and, therefore, failed to
establish the date the document was received, by what court it
was received, or by whom it was received. Code § 19.2-187
provides in relevant part:
In any hearing or trial of any criminal
offense . . ., a certificate of analysis of a
person performing an analysis or examination
. . . shall be admissible in evidence as
evidence of the facts therein stated and the
results of the analysis or examination
referred to therein, provided (i) the
certificate of analysis is filed with the
clerk of the court hearing the case at least
seven days prior to the hearing or trial and
(ii) a copy of such certificate is mailed or
delivered by the clerk or attorney for the
Commonwealth to counsel of record for the
accused at least seven days prior to the
hearing or trial upon request of such
counsel.
Generally, a court has discretion to determine whether
evidence is admissible. Langhorne v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App.
97, 106, 409 S.E.2d 476, 482 (1991) (citing Blain v.
Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 10, 16, 371 S.E.2d 838, 842 (1988)). A
certificate of analysis, however, "is not admissible if the
Commonwealth fails to strictly comply with the provisions of Code
§ 19.2-187." Woodward v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 672, 674, 432
S.E.2d 510, 512 (1993) (citing, inter alia, Gray v. Commonwealth,
220 Va. 943, 945, 265 S.E.2d 705, 706 (1980)). "Under familiar
principles, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly
-3-
deducible therefrom." Rosser v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 308,
310, 482 S.E.2d 83, 84 (1997) (citing Higginbotham v.
Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975)).
In Carter v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 156, 157, 403 S.E.2d
360, 361 (1991), the certificate of analysis at issue contained a
handwritten notation which read "1988 Feb. 1 (4:40 pm) Filed,
E.S.C., Dpty Clerk." We held that "[t]he notation that the
document had been 'filed' and date and initials of the deputy
clerk who filed it were sufficient for the trial court to
determine that the certificate had been filed in that court."
Id. at 158, 403 S.E.2d at 361.
Here, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, the stamp reads, "CIRCUIT CO . . . URG, Recei . . .
21 . . . y of Feb . . . 97 . . . 11:45 o'clock . . . a . . .
clerk," followed by the signature of "M. Musselman." The
certificate also bears a stamp reading "A COPY TESTE-SHARRON S.
MITCHELL, BY," also followed by the signature of "M. Musselman."
Finally, the certificate bears the stamp of the Fredericksburg
General District Court with the date December 26, 1996. The
stamps on the face of the document, therefore, established that
the certificate had been filed in the Fredericksburg General
District Court on December 26, 1996 and that the certificate had
been filed on February 21, 1997 in the Circuit Court of a
jurisdiction with a name ending with the letters "urg."
The only fact not apparent from the stamps on the face of
-4-
the document is whether the certificate was filed in the Circuit
Court of Fredericksburg or in another circuit court in a
jurisdiction with a name ending in the letters "urg," such as
Lynchburg. The trial court, as finder of fact, may draw
reasonable inferences from the evidence, and we are required to
respect the trial court's reasonable inferences on appeal.
Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418
(1987). The trial court inferred from the evidence before it
that the certificate had been filed with the clerk of the Circuit
Court of Fredericksburg on February 21, 1997. In addition,
appellant concedes on appeal that the certificate was found in
the Fredericksburg circuit court file on the day of trial. We
hold, therefore, that the evidence, in conjunction with
reasonable inferences therefrom, supports the court's finding
that the certificate was received by, and, therefore, "filed
with," the clerk of the Circuit Court of Fredericksburg on
February 21, 1997. See Carter, 12 Va. App. at 157, 403 S.E.2d at
361; see also Rhem v. State, 820 S.W.2d 946, 947 (Tex. App. 1991)
("A document is considered filed when delivered to the clerk for
filing.").
II.
Filing Under the Name of Different Defendant
Appellant also contends the certificate was inadmissible
because no evidence proved that the certificate was filed in
-5-
defendant's file seven days prior to trial. 1 The court found
that the certificate was filed under Lewis' name with no
cross-reference to appellant's name.
It is well established that the filing requirements of Code
§ 19.2-187 must "be construed strictly against the Commonwealth
and in favor of the accused." Gray, 220 Va. at 945, 265 S.E.2d
at 706; see also Bottoms v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 466, 469,
457 S.E.2d 796, 797 (1995). By its language, however, "the
statute requires only that the certificate be filed." Carter, 12
Va. App. at 158, 403 S.E.2d at 362. We have repeatedly explained
that the purpose of the statute "is to ensure that the
certificate to be used in evidence is lodged timely in a secure
and appropriate place, accessible to the accused, and available
to him on request." Stokes v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 550,
552, 399 S.E.2d 453, 454 (1991); see also Harshaw v.
Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 69, 72, 427 S.E.2d 733, 735 (1993)
(quoting Mostyn v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 920, 923, 420 S.E.2d
519, 521 (1992)); Mostyn, 14 Va. App. at 923, 420 S.E.2d at 521
(quoting Stokes, 11 Va. App. at 552, 399 S.E.2d at 454).
In Harshaw, 16 Va. App. at 71, 427 S.E.2d at 735, copies of
the relevant certificate of analysis were placed in the files of
two of three related marijuana offenses that were tried
simultaneously. The defendant argued that because the
1
Defendant makes no contention that the Commonwealth failed
to provide his counsel with a copy of the certificate of analysis
seven days before trial as also required by Code § 19.2-187.
-6-
certificate was not filed in the file for one of the offenses,
the certificate was inadmissible with respect to that offense.
Citing the purpose of the statute, we held:
Here, the record is clear that the challenged
certificate was properly filed with the clerk
"at least seven days prior" to trial in
compliance with Code § 19.2-187. Doubtless,
it was thereafter accessible and available to
defendant because it was lodged with another
certificate which related to simultaneously
tried offenses.
Id. at 72, 427 S.E.2d at 735.
This case is governed by Harshaw, 16 Va. App. at 72, 427
S.E.2d at 735. Code § 19.2-187 "'only [requires] that the
certificate be filed.'" Harshaw, 16 Va. App. at 72, 427 S.E.2d
at 735 (quoting Carter, 12 Va. App. at 158, 403 S.E.2d at 361);
Mostyn, 14 Va. App. at 922, 420 S.E.2d at 520 (quoting Carter, 12
Va. App. at 158, 403 S.E.2d at 361). The statute does not
require that the certificates must be filed according to any
particular system. As construed by this Court, the statute
requires the Commonwealth only to file the certificate in a way
which is "'accessible to the accused, and available to him on
request.'" Harshaw, 16 Va. App. at 72, 427 S.E.2d at 735
(quoting Mostyn, 14 Va. App. at 923, 420 S.E.2d at 521). As in
Harshaw, there is no evidence in the record that the
Fredericksburg filing system "effectively denied defendant those
protections assured by the statute." Id. at 72 n.2, 427 S.E.2d
at 735 n.2.
For these reasons, we affirm appellant's conviction.
-7-
Affirmed.
-8-