COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Benton and Elder 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

STUART ALLEN BOTTOMS 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 0317-94-2 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER 

 JUNE 6, 1995 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

John F. Daffron, Jr., Judge 

 W. Edward Riley, IV (Boone, Beale, Carpenter 

 & Cosby, on brief), for appellant. 

 Monica S. McElyea, Assistant Attorney General 

 (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

 brief), for appellee. 

 Stuart Allen Bottoms (appellant) appeals his conviction for 

driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-266. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in 

failing to suppress blood test results because the circuit court 

clerk did not send appellant a copy of the certificate of 

analysis after he had requested it in writing pursuant to Code 

§ 19.2-187(ii). Because the certificate was not delivered to 

appellant seven days prior to trial, we reverse the conviction 

and remand the case for retrial if the Commonwealth be so 

advised. 

 The record shows that on September 4, 1993, Trooper James 

Elmore of the Virginia State Police saw appellant make a turn 

without using his turn signal as he was operating a motor 

vehicle. After appellant was pulled over and exhibited signs of 

intoxication, he submitted to a blood test, which revealed that 
 -2- 

his blood alcohol content was .12 percent. Appellant was charged 

with driving under the influence and tried without a jury on 

January 25, 1994. 

 Fifty-four days before trial, appellant requested a copy of 

the certificate of analysis of his blood test from the clerk of 

the circuit court. Appellant did not notify the Commonwealth's 

attorney of this request. At trial, appellant objected to the 

admission of the certificate of analysis of his blood test, 

because he had not received a copy of the certificate prior to 

trial, pursuant to Code § 19.2-187(ii). 

 In response to appellant's objection, the Commonwealth moved 

for a continuance to provide appellant with the opportunity to 

review the certificate. Appellant objected to the continuance on 

the basis that it would be prejudicial to his case. The court 

overruled the objection and offered appellant two alternatives: 

(1) to continue the case in order to allow the Commonwealth to 

provide appellant with the certificate pursuant to the statute; 

or (2) to proceed with the case after a short recess in order to 

allow appellant time to review the certificate. Appellant took 

exception to the court's ruling and selected the second option. 

The certificate was received into evidence over appellant's 

objection, and he was convicted of driving under the influence. 

 Code § 19.2-187 states: 

In any hearing or trial of any criminal offense or in 

any proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 22.1 . . . 

of this title, a certificate of analysis of a person 

performing an analysis or examination . . . shall be 
 -3- 

admissible 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. 

(Emphasis added). 

 As we have stated on numerous occasions, "[a] certificate of 

analysis is not admissible if the Commonwealth fails strictly to 

comply with the provisions of Code § 19.2-187." Woodward v. 

Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 672, 674, 432 S.E.2d 510, 512 (1993); 

Mullins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 372, 374-75, 404 S.E.2d 237, 

238-39 (1991); Basfield v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 122, 124, 

398 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1990). Code § 19.2-187 is construed strictly 

against the Commonwealth. Mullins, 12 Va. App. at 374, 404 

S.E.2d at 238. 

 The Commonwealth argues that by agreeing, over objection, to 

try the case later in the day rather than continue the case for 

seven days, appellant waived his objection to the admissibility 

of the certificate of analysis. This argument assumes that a 

continuance for seven days after trial had begun would have 

allowed the Commonwealth to comply with Code § 19.2-187(ii). 

 Code § 19.2-187(ii) requires that the certificate be mailed 

or delivered to counsel "at least seven days prior to . . . 

trial." (Emphasis added). A continuance of any length after the 

trial had begun would not have remedied the Commonwealth's non-
 -4- 

compliance. Because the Commonwealth failed strictly to comply 

with the requirements of Code § 19.2-187, the judgment of the 

trial court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings if 

the Commonwealth be so advised. 

Reversed and remanded.