COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Bumgardner and Frank
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
SHELTON THOMAS, S/K/A
SHELTON RAY THOMAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0343-01-1 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
H. Vincent Conway, Jr., Judge
Robert Moody, IV (Krinick, Segall, Moody,
Lewis & Allen, on brief), for appellant.
Jennifer R. Franklin, Assistant Attorney
General (Randolph A. Beales, Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
Shelton Thomas, s/k/a Shelton Ray Thomas (appellant) was
convicted in a bench trial of distribution of cocaine, in
violation of Code § 18.2-248. On appeal, he contends the trial
court erred when admitting into evidence the certificate of
analysis. He argues the Commonwealth failed to establish a
post-analysis chain of custody for the cocaine. For the reasons
stated, we affirm the conviction.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the chain of custody was "broken"
because Terry Hutchens, an evidence custodian for James City
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
County, did not account for the drugs from the time he received
the evidence from the lab until the evidence was presented in
court; therefore, appellant maintains, the trial court erred by
accepting the evidence. When reviewing such decisions to admit
evidence, the trial court's ruling "will not be disturbed on
appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion." Blain v.
Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 10, 16, 371 S.E.2d 838, 842 (1988).
Appellant does not contest the chain until after Hutchens
retrieved the evidence from the lab. The issue, therefore,
requires us to examine whether a post-analysis chain of custody
must be established before a certificate can be introduced. Our
decision in Gosling v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 158, 415 S.E.2d
870 (1992), controls this issue.
In Gosling, we explained:
Evidence of the "physical or chemical
properties of an item . . . requires proof
of the chain of custody" to establish "'with
reasonable certainty'" that the material was
not "'altered, substituted, or
contaminated'" prior to its analysis. Reedy
v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 386, 387, 388
S.E.2d 650, 650-51 (1990) (quoting
Washington v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 535,
550, 323 S.E.2d 577, 587 (1984), cert.
denied, 471 U.S. 1111 (1985)). Obviously,
it is the period preceding the analysis that
is crucial to this determination. Id. at
391-92, 388 S.E.2d at 650-51. Once
reasonably certain that the evidence
analyzed was the same evidence originally
collected and submitted, the report in this
instance was admissible "as evidence of the
facts therein stated and the results of the
analysis . . . referred to therein." Code
§ 19.2-187.
- 2 -
While the record reflects that some
confusion may have occurred in the
post-analysis repackaging and return of the
evidence from the laboratory, this problem
related to the articles themselves, not the
certificate of analysis.
Id. at 166, 415 S.E.2d at 874.
Here, without question, the Commonwealth established the
pre-analysis chain of custody, and the certificate of analysis
itself was properly received by the court. The handling of the
drugs themselves after the analysis has no relevance to the
admission of the certificate as long as the evidence of custody
prior to the analysis establishes "'"with reasonable certainty"'
that the material was not '"altered, substituted, or
contaminated"' prior to the analysis." Gosling, 14 Va. App. at
166, 415 S.E.2d at 874 (quoting Reedy, 9 Va. App. at 387, 388
S.E.2d at 650-51 (quoting Washington, 228 Va. at 550, 323 S.E.2d
at 587)) (emphasis added).
Finding no error in the admission of the certificate of
analysis, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 3 -