COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Coleman and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

RONALD WAYNE LEWIS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0430-96-2 BY JUDGE MARVIN F. COLE 

 JUNE 3, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 

Lee A. Harris, Jr., Judge 

 John H. Click, Jr. (White, Blackburn & Conte, 

P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 Ruth Ann Morken, Assistant Attorney General 

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

brief), for appellee. 

 Ronald Wayne Lewis (Lewis) was convicted of the distribution 

of cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-248. He contends on 

appeal that the trial judge erred by admitting the certificate of 

analysis in violation of the filing requirements of Code 

§ 19.2-187. We find no error and affirm the conviction. 

 During Lewis' trial, the Commonwealth introduced into 

evidence four envelopes containing cocaine that the Commonwealth 

contended Lewis sold to an informant. The Commonwealth then 

attempted to introduce the certificate of analysis for these 

substances. Lewis objected to the admission of the certificate 

because it was not filed with the trial court within seven days 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

 

of the trial pursuant to Code § 19.2-187.1

 The trial judge 

sustained the objection, and the Commonwealth called Robert 

Steiner, the chemist who performed the analyses of the 

substances, as a witness to authenticate the certificate. 

 Steiner identified his signature on the certificate. He 

then opened the exhibit envelopes containing the cocaine and 

testified that each exhibit corresponded to an item number in his 

report. Steiner agreed that the certificate of analysis 

reflected the analysis he performed on each of the four listed 

items. He also testified that the bags containing the cocaine 

bore his initials, the "F.S." lab number, which corresponded to 

the numbers used in this case, and the dates on which he analyzed 

the material. 

 1Code § 19.2-187 provides, in pertinent part: 

 In any hearing or trial of any criminal 

offense . . . a certificate of analysis of a 

person performing an analysis or examination, 

performed in any laboratory operated by the 

Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services 

or the Division of Forensic Science . . . 

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 (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. 
 3 

 The trial judge found that Steiner received the items, that 

he properly identified the items he received as corresponding to 

the items he examined, that he could identify the items by lab 

number, that the results reported in the certificate were 

accurate, and that they reflected Steiner's testing of the items. 

 The judge accepted Steiner's testimony, and he admitted the 

certificate of analysis, stating that it was "only being 

introduced as being the conclusion of what [Steiner] found 

. . . ." 

 A written report offered to prove the 

results of testing or of an analysis would 

generally be inadmissible hearsay evidence 

unless the person who conducted the testing 

or prepared the report testified to 

authenticate the document and verify its 

contents. Code § 19.2-187 was enacted to 

allow into evidence a written report of an 

analysis or examination conducted by 

specified laboratories, without requiring 

that the technicians be present. The statute 

sets forth specific safeguards, however, with 

which the Commonwealth must comply when it 

seeks to have a certificate of drug analysis 

admitted into evidence without independently 

proving the test results or authenticity of 

the report . . . . 

Myrick v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 333, 336-37, 412 S.E.2d 176, 

178 (1991). 

 "[I]n the absence of the preparer of the certificate as a 

witness at trial, the failure of the Commonwealth fully to comply 

with the filing provisions of [Code] § 19.2-187 renders the 

certificate inadmissible." Gray v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 943, 

945, 265 S.E.2d 705, 706 (1980). 
 4 

 Therefore, the Commonwealth's failure to file the 

certificate within seven days of the trial precluded the 

introduction of the certificate at trial "without independently 

proving the test results or authenticity of the report." Myrick, 

13 Va. App. at 337, 412 S.E.2d at 178. However, the Commonwealth 

properly authenticated the certificate by calling Steiner, the 

chemist who performed the analyses and who signed the 

certificate, to testify concerning his analyses and the 

information on the certificate. Lewis then had the opportunity 

to cross-examine Steiner to verify the results shown on the 

certificate and to challenge the analyses of the substances. The 

authentication of the certificate by the technician who performed 

the analyses and prepared the certificate "obviates the hearsay 

problem" associated with the admission of the certificate of 

analysis. See id. at 338, 412 S.E.2d at 179. 

 Similarly, "Code § 19.2-188 provides a statutory exception 

to the hearsay rule by permitting investigation reports and 

autopsy reports of the Chief Medical Examiner or his assistants 

to be received in evidence without requiring the investigating 

official to testify." Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 615, 

630, 292 S.E.2d 798, 806 (1982). In Fitzgerald, the defendant 

contended that, because the medical examiner testified at the 

trial, the trial judge erred in admitting the medical examiner's 

investigation report and his autopsy report. The defendant 

argued that the reports contained inadmissible hearsay. See id.
 5 

 The Supreme Court held: 

 There is no preclusive language in 

[Code § 19.2-188] barring introduction of the 

reports if the investigating official 

testifies; we decline to construe the statute 

to require an election by the Commonwealth to 

introduce the relevant evidence either by a 

qualified witness or by the written reports. 

 As to the hearsay objection, we hold 

that any error in admitting portions of the 

report containing inadmissible opinions, was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Id. at 630, 292 S.E.2d at 806-07. 

 Therefore, assuming, without deciding, that the trial judge 

admitted the certificate of analysis for the limited purpose of 

"being the conclusion of what [Steiner] found," any error in 

admitting portions of the certificate that contained information 

not testified to by Steiner was "harmless beyond a reasonable 

doubt." See id.

 In summary, Steiner's testimony linked the items introduced 

in court as the substances that he analyzed, that he identified 

as cocaine, and that he reported in the certificate of analysis. 

 Lewis was free to cross-examine Steiner concerning all aspects 

of his analyses and concerning the information contained in the 

certificate of analysis. The opportunity to cross-examine the 

chemist who performed the tests and who prepared the certificate 

eliminated the hearsay problem associated with the admission of 

the certificate when the Commonwealth failed to comply with the 

filing requirements of Code § 19.2-187. Therefore, the trial 

judge did not err in admitting the certificate of analysis. 
 6 

 

 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the decision of 

the trial judge. 

 Affirmed.