Opinion ID: 1058523
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Magruder v. Commonwealth

Text: During a consensual search of Michael Ricardo Magruder, Officer William Catlett of the City of Winchester Police Department discovered an off-white rock-like substance in the right front pocket of Magruder's pants. Catlett suspected the substance was' crack cocaine. Catlett took possession of the rock and submitted it to a forensic laboratory for testing. A forensic analyst with the Department of Criminal Justice Services, Division of Forensic Science, tested the substance and reported in a certificate of analysis that it was 0.022 gram[s] of cocaine. In the certificate, the analyst also attested that he had performed the analysis and that the certificate was an accurate record of the results of that analysis. Magruder was subsequently indicted in the Circuit Court of the City of Winchester for possession of cocaine, in violation of Code § 18.2-250(A). At a bench trial, the Commonwealth offered into evidence the certificate of analysis. Relying on the decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), Magruder objected, asserting that the admission of the certificate of analysis would violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness against him. The circuit court overruled Magruder's objection, stating:  Crawford only applies to testimonial evidence. You have a right to call [the forensic analyst] if you want to. Magruder did not call the forensic analyst to testify and presented no evidence refuting the accuracy of the analysis of the substance seized from him, as reported in the certificate of analysis. The circuit court convicted Magruder of possession of cocaine and sentenced him to a suspended term of one year and six months of incarceration, with two years of supervised probation. The Court of Appeals affirmed Magruder's conviction in an unpublished opinion. Magruder v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1982-05-4, 2007 WL 737552 (March 13, 2007). Relying on its decision in Brooks v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 155, 638 S.E.2d 131 (2006), the Court of Appeals held that the procedures set forth in Code §§ 19.2-187 and 19.2-187.1 adequately protected Magruder's Confrontation Clause rights and that Magruder's failure to notify the Commonwealth of his desire to cross-examine the forensic analyst at trial waived his right to do so. Magruder, at . Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court did not err in admitting the certificate of analysis in the absence of testimony from the person who performed the analysis. Id. On appeal to this Court, Magruder presents two assignments of error: I. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Code § 19.2-187.1 sets out a reasonable procedure to be followed in order for a defendant to exercise his right to confront a particular limited class of scientific witnesses at trial. II. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that a defendant's failure to timely notify the Commonwealth of his desire to confront the forensic analyst at trial constitutes a waiver of that right.