 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Commonwealth7/31/1990
was placed arrived unsealed. The unsealed condition of the container calls into question whether the vial was the same vial which contained the defendant's blood. The Commonwealth did not offer the vial as evidence and presented no evidence concerning the labeling of the vial. In the absence of such evidence, the trial judge in ruling upon the admissibility of the certificate of analysis, cannot assume, in the absence of statutory compliance, that the vial in the unsealed container was the same vial which was originally placed there by the person taking the blood sample from the defendant.
The Commonwealth argues that the defect was procedural and that the certificate was admissible under Code § 18.2-268(Z). We conclude, however, that the defect, which raised the issue of the integrity of the sample, was a matter of substance not covered by Code § 18.2-268(Z). Cf. Brooks v. City of Newport News, 224 Va. 311, 315, 295 S.E.2d 801, 803 (1982). It was error to admit the certificate into evidence at trial.
We need not decide whether, in the absence of the certificate of analysis, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Williams' conviction. That issue is left for the trial court's determination on remand.
Reversed and remanded.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded.
|