COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Frank and Clements 

Argued by teleconference 

IRVIN STEVENS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 1465-07-2 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER 

 SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAROLINE COUNTY 

Horace A. Revercomb, III, Judge 

 Russell E. Booker, III, for appellant. 

 Robert H. Anderson, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General 

(Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Irvin Stevens (appellant) appeals from his bench trial conviction for distributing cocaine 

in violation of Code § 18.2-248. On appeal, he contends the trial court erroneously admitted into 

evidence a certificate of analysis confirming the substance he distributed on May 19, 2004, was 

cocaine because the certificate was improperly filed in a related case charging distribution on 

May 20, 2004, and was provided to him in response to his request for a copy of the certificate 

relevant to the May 20 offense rather than the May 19 offense. We hold the admission of the 

challenged certificate was not error, and we affirm the conviction. 

I. 

BACKGROUND 

 On May 19, 2004, Detective Travis Christian and Corporal Joseph Patterson met with a 

confidential informant, searched her, gave her $50, and observed her meet with the appellant 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

outside his residence for the purpose of purchasing crack cocaine. The informant then turned 

over to Detective Christian an off-white, rock-like substance that they suspected was crack 

cocaine. Detective Christian put the rock in a plastic bag, which he sealed and labeled with the 

transaction date, and he then gave the bag to Officer Robert Jones, who transported it to the state 

laboratory for analysis. 

 On May 20, 2004, a similar transaction occurred except that the detectives gave the 

informant $100, and she returned from her meeting with appellant with two rocks of suspected 

crack cocaine. Again, Detective Christian put the suspected drugs in a plastic bag, which he 

sealed and labeled with the transaction date, and he turned the bag over to Officer Jones, who 

transported it to the state laboratory for analysis. 

 In 2006, appellant was indicted for both offenses, and his attorney filed a timely request 

for copies of the certificates for the two cases. The clerk’s office provided counsel with copies 

of two certificates. The certificate he received in response to his request for the one relating to 

the May 19 offense bore FS Lab Number C04-13405. The certificate he received in response to 

his request for the one relating to the May 20 offense bore FS Lab Number C04-14124. 

 The May 19 and May 20 offenses were tried together on March 14, 2007. Appellant also 

was indicted for two other offenses, but appellant was not tried for those in the same proceeding. 

 The Commonwealth offered testimony about the two controlled purchases that occurred 

on May 19 and May 20 and chain-of-custody evidence for the rocks of suspected crack cocaine 

received in those transactions. It then moved to admit into evidence what it averred were the 

certificates of analysis showing the results from the testing of substances received on each of 

those two days. The prosecutor offered the certificate bearing lab number C04-13405 into 

evidence as proof that the substance obtained in the May 19, 2004 transaction was 0.613 gram of 

cocaine. The trial court observed that the certificate bearing that lab number, C04-13405, was 
- 3 - 

“in the file with the indictment alleging an offense on May 20th” but that “it really doesn’t 

matter if it was misfiled.” The prosecutor then said, “Well, let me just offer both of them in. . . . 

[O]ne is lab number C04[-]13405 and the other one is [13404].” Appellant’s attorney inquired, 

“What’s . . . the other lab report [number], Judge?” The trial court said, “the other one,” which 

was in the file for the May 19, 2004 offense, “is C04-14124,” to which appellant’s attorney 

responded, “Yeah, that’s . . . what I have[, but] [i]t’s not what [the prosecutor] has.” 

 Counsel for appellant stated he would like an opportunity to further voir dire Officer 

Jones, the evidence custodian, before the certificates were admitted because “he didn’t think that 

. . . [their] being in the wrong file is necessarily harmless, given that we’re talking about different 

amounts of money.” 

 Additional examination of Officer Jones confirmed that the certificate bearing FS Lab 

Number C04-13405, which was filed in the case file for the May 20 offense, related to the May 

19 offense and that the certificate for the May 20 offense bore FS Lab Number C04-13404. The 

certificate for the May 20 offense was not contained in either the May 19 or May 20 file and also 

was not contained in the files for the other two offenses then pending against appellant but not 

set for trial in that proceeding. Although the prosecutor produced a copy of the certificate for the 

May 20 charge indicating it had been filed in the circuit court on January 28, 2005, additional 

evidence established “[i]t’s not in the court’s file” and “the defense was not given a copy of it.” 

The trial court ruled that the certificate for the May 20 offense was inadmissible. 

 As to the certificate for the May 19 offense, FS Lab Number C04-13405, which had been 

erroneously filed in the May 20 case file, appellant argued it was inadmissible because “the 

notice [he] was given was that that was for a transaction on a different day,” May 20 rather than 

May 19. The trial court ruled: 

I don’t think that would defeat its admissibility. . . . I’m going to 

overrule the objection with regard to the admissibility of FS Lab 
- 4 - 

Number C04-13405 . . . [a]s to the case alleging an offense on May 

the 19th, because that’s what the evidence ties that to. . . . And . . . 

you’ve acknowledged you received[] that[,] albeit [for] a different 

case number. 

 Thereafter, the trial court granted appellant’s motion to strike as to the May 20 offense, 

for which no certificate of analysis was admitted, but convicted appellant for distributing cocaine 

on May 19, the date for which the improperly filed certificate had been admitted. After 

sentencing, appellant noted this appeal. 

II. 

ANALYSIS 

 On appeal, “we view the evidence in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth.” 

Bolden v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 285, 288, 640 S.E.2d 526, 528 (2007) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 S.E.2d 781, 786 (2003)). 

 Code § 19.2-187 provides in relevant part as follows: 

In any hearing or trial of any criminal offense . . . , a 

certificate of analysis of a person performing an analysis or 

examination, performed in [any of the enumerated state or federal 

laboratories] when such certificate is duly attested by such person, 

shall be admissible in evidence as evidence of the facts therein 

stated and the results of the analysis or examination referred to 

therein, provided 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. 

A copy of such certificate shall be mailed or delivered by 

the clerk or attorney for the Commonwealth to counsel of record 

for the accused at no charge at least seven days prior to the hearing 

or trial upon request made by such counsel [in the manner 

prescribed by the statute] . . . . If, upon proper request made by 

counsel of record for the accused, a copy of such certificate is not 

mailed or delivered by the clerk or attorney for the Commonwealth 

to counsel of record for the accused in a timely manner in 

accordance with this section, the defendant shall be entitled to 

continue the hearing or trial. 

2006 Va. Acts ch. 294. 
- 5 - 

 Under established principles, “the filing requirements of Code § 19.2-187 must ‘be 

strictly construed against the Commonwealth and in favor of the accused,’” Waller v. 

Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 508, 510 (1998) (quoting Gray v. 

Commonwealth, 220 Va. 943, 945, 265 S.E.2d 705, 706 (1980)), because the statute “‘deals with 

criminal matters[] and . . . undertakes to make admissible evidence which otherwise might be 

subject to a valid hearsay objection,’” Stokes v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 550, 552, 399 

S.E.2d 453, 454 (1991) (quoting Gray, 220 Va. at 945, 265 S.E.2d at 706). “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.” Waller, 27 Va. App. at 76, 497 S.E.2d at 510 (quoting Stokes, 11 Va. App. at 552, 

399 S.E.2d at 454). 

 In examining the filing requirement in numerous cases, we have held that the statute 

“does not require that the certificates must be filed according to any particular system,” id. at 77, 

497 S.E.2d at 511, as long as the certificate is filed in a way that is “‘accessible to the accused, 

and available to him on request,’” id. at 76, 497 S.E.2d at 510 (quoting Stokes, 11 Va. App. at 

552, 399 S.E.2d at 454). In Harshaw v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 69, 427 S.E.2d 733 (1993), 

for example, the certificate relating to an offense occurring on October 30, 1990, was filed in the 

clerk’s office in a timely fashion, but instead of being placed in the file for the offense to which it 

pertained, it was “lodged with another certificate which related to simultaneously tried offenses” 

that occurred two days later, on November 1, 1990. Id. at 72, 427 S.E.2d at 735. On those facts, 

we held the certificate was “thereafter accessible and available to [the] defendant,” thereby 

satisfying “both the letter and spirit” of the statute. Id.

 Similarly in appellant’s case, the certificate of analysis for the May 19 offense was 

lodged in the file for a “simultaneously tried offense[],” id., of a nearly identical nature that was 
- 6 - 

committed one day later. Thus, the certificate was “accessible and available to [the] defendant,” 

satisfying “both the letter and spirit” of the statute. Id.

 Further, in response to appellant’s simultaneous request for certificates of analysis 

pertaining to both those offenses, submitted in compliance with the terms of the second 

paragraph of the statute, the clerk provided appellant with a copy of the certificate at issue. 

Although appellant may erroneously have believed, due to the misfiling of the certificate at issue, 

that it applied to the May 20 offense rather than the May 19 offense, he made no effort to 

subpoena the preparer of either certificate as he was permitted to do under Code § 19.2-187.1. 

On brief on appeal, the only prejudice appellant alleges is that the certificate at issue provided 

the evidence used to convict him. He does not allege that he was prejudiced in any way in the 

preparation of his case for trial by the improper filing of the certificate. Even if he had alleged 

such prejudice, the applicable version of the statute expressly provides that the remedy for failure 

to provide counsel with a requested certificate of analysis “in a timely manner in accordance 

with [the statute]” is that “the defendant shall be entitled to continue the hearing or trial.” 2006 

Va. Acts ch. 294. Here, however, appellant sought only to have the evidence excluded and did 

not request a continuance. 

 On these facts, we hold the trial court did not err in refusing to exclude the challenged 

certificate of analysis. 

III. 

 For these reasons, we hold the admission of the certificate of analysis was not error, and 

we affirm appellant’s conviction. 

Affirmed.