COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Annunziata 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

LINWOOD DONZELL PERRY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 3026-99-2 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 NOVEMBER 21, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 

George F. Tidey, Judge 

 (H. Pratt Cook, III; Robert Cabell & 

Associates, on brief), for appellant. 

Appellant submitting on brief. 

 H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

 Linwood Donzell Perry (appellant) was convicted in a bench 

trial for possession of heroin. On appeal, he asserts that the 

trial court erroneously admitted a certificate of analysis 

contrary to the requirements of Code § 19.2-187 and, that 

without this evidence, he would not have been convicted. We 

affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

I. BACKGROUND

 On May 17, 1999, Officer Karen Marie Dussling stopped a 

vehicle operated by Perry. As she walked back to her police car 

to write him a summons, Perry fled. Officer Dussling caught and 
arrested him. When she searched him incident to that arrest, 

she found a metal spoon in his pocket. 

 After Officer Dussling read Perry his Miranda rights, she 

asked him about the metal spoon. He replied that "he had used 

heroin around 5 p.m. and that there was heroin residue . . . on 

the metal spoon." 

 The spoon was delivered to the state forensic laboratory, 

which issued a certificate of analysis stating that the spoon 

contained heroin residue. On September 17, 1999, Perry filed a 

motion for discovery. The certificate of analysis was not 

forwarded to Perry, however, until October 5, 1999, the day 

before the trial. 

At trial, the Commonwealth offered the certificate of 

analysis into evidence. Perry objected, arguing that it had not 

been delivered to him at least seven days prior to trial as 

required by Code § 19.2-187. The court overruled the objection, 

admitted the certificate of analysis, and found Perry guilty of 

possession of heroin. 

II. ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

 Perry contends that the trial court erred in admitting the 

certificate of analysis into evidence under Code § 19.2-187. We 

agree. 

 Code § 19.2-187 provides, in relevant part, that a 

certificate of analysis shall be admissible in evidence 

provided: 

- 2 -
(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 . . . to counsel of 

record for the accused at least seven days 

prior to the hearing or trial upon request 

made by such counsel. 

The certificate of analysis was not delivered to Perry at 

least seven days prior to trial. Thus, the requirements of Code 

§ 19.2-187 were not met, and the certificate was inadmissible. 

See Gray v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 943, 945, 265 S.E.2d 705, 706 

(1980). 

The Commonwealth argues that the improper evidence was 

harmless in light of Perry's admission to Officer Dussling. We 

agree. 

In Virginia, non-constitutional error "is harmless '[w]hen 

it plainly appears from the record and the evidence given at the 

trial that the parties have had a fair trial on the merits and 

substantial justice has been reached.'" Lavinder v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 1003, 1005, 407 S.E.2d 910, 911 (1991) 

(en banc) (quoting Code § 8.01-678). "An error does not affect 

a verdict if a reviewing court can conclude, without usurping 

the jury's fact finding function, that, had the error not 

occurred, the verdict would have been the same." Id. "The 

effect of an error on a verdict varies widely 'depending upon 

the circumstances of the case.' Each . . . must . . . be 

- 3 -
analyzed individually to determine if an error has affected the 

verdict." Id. at 1009, 407 S.E.2d at 913 (citation omitted). 

Perry admitted to Officer Dussling that the residue on the 

spoon was heroin. He has never retracted or disputed this 

acknowledgment. This evidence is competent and credible and 

supports the judgment of the trial court. 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed. 

- 4 -