COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Bray 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

LELAND LLOYD JOHNSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2371-97-2 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 OCTOBER 27, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Donald W. Lemons, Judge 

 Brian H. Jones (Kaestner, Pitney & 

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

 Ruth Ann Morken, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Leland Lloyd Johnson (defendant) was convicted in a bench 

trial for driving while intoxicated. On appeal, defendant 

complains that the "Certificate of Blood Alcohol Analysis" 

(certificate) was improperly admitted into evidence because the 

clerk of the trial court failed to provide a copy upon his 

request pursuant to Code § 19.2-187. We disagree and affirm the 

conviction. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and we 

recite only those facts necessary for disposition of the appeal. 

 In accordance with well established principles, we view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party 

below, the Commonwealth in this instance, granting all reasonable 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Commonwealth v. 

Grimstead, 12 Va. App. 1066, 1067, 407 S.E.2d 47, 48 (1991). 

 On May 24, 1997, Officer Richard Dunn arrested defendant for 

driving under the influence of alcohol. A related analysis of 

defendant's breath reflected an alcohol content of .11 grams per 

210 liters. Prior to trial in the general district court and, 

again, on appeal to the circuit court, defendant requested a copy 

of the certificate of analysis from the respective clerks' 

offices. Although defendant properly received a copy from the 

general district court clerk, the clerk of the trial court failed 

to respond. The record establishes, however, that the 

Commonwealth timely mailed a copy of the certificate to 

defendant's counsel during the pendency of the appeal in the 

circuit court. 

 Defendant objected to admission of the certificate into 

evidence as an exception to hearsay created by Code § 19.2-187, 

arguing that the clerk of the trial court had neglected to 

provide a copy in accordance with the statute. In overruling the 

objection, the court concluded that the copy previously provided 

defendant by the clerk of the general district court satisfied 

the application of Code § 19.2-187 to the circuit court 

proceedings. Moreover, the trial judge found that "the 

certificate of analysis was mailed [by the Commonwealth] to 

counsel for the defendant." 

 Code § 19.2-187 provides, in pertinent part, that 

 [i]n any hearing or trial of any criminal 
- 3 - 

offense . . ., a certificate of analysis of a 

person performing an analysis or examination 

. . . 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. 

Thus, a certificate of analysis is clearly admissible provided a 

copy "is mailed or delivered by the clerk or attorney for the 

Commonwealth to [defense] counsel at least seven days prior to 

the hearing or trial upon request of such counsel." Code 

§ 19.2-187 (emphasis added). However, a certificate "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). 

 On appeal, factual findings "which are necessary predicates 

to rulings on the admissibility of evidence . . . are to be given 

the same weight as is accorded a finding of fact by the jury." 

Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 61, 64, 389 S.E.2d 731, 

732-33 (1990). Here, the court determined that the attorney for 

the Commonwealth had timely mailed a copy of the certificate to 

defendant's counsel prior to trial in the circuit court, a 

conclusion supported by the record. Although defendant's counsel 

contends that he never received the document, the mailing, 
- 4 - 

without more, fulfilled the statutory imperative. 

 The Commonwealth, therefore, complied with the provisions of 

Code § 19.2-187, and the trial court properly admitted the 

certificate into evidence.1

 Accordingly, we affirm the 

conviction. 

 Affirmed.

 

 1Although the trial court concluded that compliance with 

Code § 19.2-187 by the general district court clerk satisfied the 

statute in the later circuit court proceedings, we find it 

unnecessary to address that issue.