Court Opinion

ID: 9581003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:10:57.711228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:39.127115
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON, J.,
dissenting.
The majority holds that the failure of the prosecution to file the certificate of the chemist at least seven days prior to the hearing as provided in Code § 19.2-187 requires a new trial. I do not agree.
The record shows that on December 15, 1978 the defendant filed a motion for discovery and bill of particulars, and that a copy of the certificate of analysis by the chemist was hand delivered to the defense attorney on January 5, 1979. The certificate of analysis was filed with the clerk of court on February 6, 1979, and the case was tried on February 9, 1979. In the argument on the objection during the trial, and out of the presence of the jury, the attorney for the defense did not claim, nor did he attempt to show, that he had been prejudiced by the four-day delay in filing. The trial court concluded that the defendant had not been prejudiced.
The ruling of the trial court was erroneous, but it is not sufficient to require a reversal and new trial.
In a comparable situation this court said:
While it is the duty of the arresting officer to comply with the statute, his failure to do so does not constitute reversible error unless it affirmatively appears that defendant was prejudiced thereby.
Dorchincoz v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 33, 36, 59 S.E.2d 863 (1950).
For this reason, I respectfully dissent.