TO: Boyd Graves Conference

DATE: August 2011

FROM: Evidence Committee

W. Coleman Allen, Esq.James O. Broccoletti, Esq.Hon. Rudolph Bumgardner, IIIRichard A. Conway, Esq.Joseph C. Kearfott, Esq., CkairHon. D. Arthur KelseyHon Stephen R. McCulloughKenneth Montero, Esq.John M. Oakey, Jr., Esq.Prof. Kent Sinclair, Project ReporterThomas W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.

The Evidence Committee met by telephone to consider whatrevisions are necessary to A Guide to Evidence in Virginia inlight of the recent Legislative season and case law from theappellate courts in the prior 12 months. The Committeeconcluded that relatively few changes are needed. Therevisions that the Committee believed should be made areshown in shaded areas in the portions of the Guide thatfollow. These changes will be reflected in the 2012 edition tobe published toward the end of this year.

-1-

A GUIDE TO EVIDENCE IN VIRGINIA2012 Edition

A Guide to Evidence in Virginia is intended to restate thepresent law of evidence in Virginia in a single, organized body ofprinciples for the convenience of judges and practitioners alike. Itis not intended to change any aspect of Virginia law. The evidencesections in the Guide have been drafted and revised over a periodof more than 15 years by a committee composed of both plaintiffs’and defense lawyers, commercial and criminal law practitioners,as well as law professors, judges, and former judges. Leading casesare cited in the notes to each section. Where the General Assemblyhas covered a topic by statute, the Guide simply incorporates thegoverning provision.

The drafting committee invites comments and suggestedcorrections or improvements to the Guide. The goal is to develop avolume that allows easy access--in one place--to the governingprinciples which at present are embedded in 200 years of case taw,several statutes, and rules of court.

Specialized proceedings may involve procedures andevidentiary provisions different from those in ordinary Virginiajudicial proceedings, described in the Guide. It should also benoted that the Guide does not address matters of substantive law,which may affect admissibility of categories of proof, or that arebased on constitutional requirements that also may preclude orrequire admission of certain categories of proof.

"Reserved" sections. Where the drafting committee hasnoticed that most jurisdictions have a provision on a particularsubject, but no definitive Virginia law has been located, the topicis marked "Reserved" in this Guide, to await further developmentof the law on that topic.

A Guide to Evidence in Virginia was prepared by the Boyd-Graves Conference of the Virginia Bar Association, and theVirginia Bar Association reserves all rights therein. Unauthorizedreproduction is prohibited. To obtain permission, which will beliberally granted for research and educational purposes, to reprintA Guide to Evidence in Virginia, in whole or in part, contactEvidence Committee, c/o the Project Reporter, Professor KentSinclair, Virginia Law Building, 580 Massie Road, Charlottesville,Virginia 22903-1789.

This edition has been updated to reflectdevelopments through August 2011.

Not~upaates

§ 404(~), (new ~e,la~i_on the proper f~rmof character witness

§.~O~:~:i~ ~!--~il (~ot~i~a.~,~ti~.~i~rega~ding the f0~,~..ation needed for expert

§~ :~ : : (not~ addi~i0ns rel~ardinl~ defects io t~e foundation for

§803(29) : (note rews~on on const=tut=onahty of the p ce guide~i:

-3-

§ 804(a)::(nffw c~ecitatio~ regarding u.,na$ailability of a witnessf~r

§ 804(b)(6)_ :i ,i~::(new case citation on "interested witnesses" in dead-man

situations)

§ 90:[ ::(updated statutory citations)

§9102(4) ,:. ~ (new caselnote concernin8 admission of circuit court

re~,.ords)

§ -i- (added statutory references)

Copyright 8 2011 The Virginia Bar Association on behalf of the Boyd-GravesConference. All rights reserved.

These provisions are intended to state existing Virginia caseand statutory law on evidence. They are not intended to changeVirginia law. The sections should be construed in accordancewith this intent.

-4-

ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE

§ 201. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS

NOTESubdivision (a). This subdivision permits notice of facts beyond

reasonable controversy. Griswold v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 477, 484,453 S.E.2d 287, 290 (1995), rev’d on other grounds, 252 Va. 113, 472 S.E.2d789 (1996) ("The trial court may take judicial notice of facts which are either (a)common knowledge or (b) easily ascertainable by reference to reliable sources.These are two separate and distinct grounds for judicial notice."). See generallyThomas v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 605, 633 S.E.2d 229 (2006). The keyto a fair trial is the opportunity to use appropriate tools (rebuttal evidence, cross-examination, and argument) to meet adverse material. These considerations callfor dispensing with traditional methods of proof only in clear cases. Courts maytake judicial notice of matters which are "common knowledge" or part of the"general experience of society." Keesee v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 174, 175,217 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1975); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 1, 502S.E.2d 113 (1998); see, e.g., Thacker v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 707, 108 S.E.559 (1921) (whiskey is intoxicating). The courts may also take judicial notice of"easily ascertaina’ble facts." See, e.g., Ryan v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 439,446, 247 S.E.2d 698, 703 (1978) (newspaper time charts establish sunrise);Johnson v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 452, 126 S.E. 5 (1925) (locatiori inquestion appears on maps in common use). This provision does not change theVirginia rule that a trial court may not take judicial notice of the authenticity ofits records, judgments, and orders in other and different cases or proceedings,even though such cases or proceedings may be between the same parties. Youngv. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 780, 75 S.E.2d 479 (1953}; Fleming v. Anderson,187 Va. 788, 794, 48 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1948}; see also Taylor, 28 Va. App. 1,502 S.E.2d 113. O~:~cial hotice 0f:a.t~l c0firt!s :~W~ records; s~e Williams v,Comrnonw~!~ ~7~ii~pp~ ~50, 706 :S’E~2d 530~2011)i A trial court "willnot travel outside the record of the case before it in order to take notice of theproceedings in another case.., unless the proceedings are put in evidence."Bernau v. Nealon, 219 Va. 1039, 1043, 254 S.E.2d 82, 85 (1979). For judicialnotice of official publications, see Va. Code § 8.01-388 (set forth infra in § 902(5)of this Guide). Regarding the use of encyclopedias and similar reference works bythe courts, see Harrison-Wyatt v. Ratliff, 267 Va. 549, 593 S.E.2d 234 (2004).

Subdivision (b). In accord with the general view, judicial notice may betaken at any stage of the proceedings, whether in the trial court or on appealThe Virginia Supreme Court has, on its own motion, taken judicial notice of facts.See Lakeside Inn Corp. v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 696, 114 S.E. 769 (1922}(that January 8, 1922, fell on a Sunday). Note, however, that the court hasdeclined to allow notice at the appellate level to suppl:~ elements which shouldhave been proven in the trial court. See, e.g., Rufty v. Commonwealth, 221 Va.836, 275 S.E.2d 584 (1981}.

Subdivision (c). Basic fairness demands that counsel have’ anopportunity to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice. State FarmMut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Powell, 227 Va. 492, 318 S,E.2d 393 (1984) (error totake notice where party "had no prior opportunity to be heard either to disputethe ’facts’ or to object to the court’s action"). Often, a request for the taking ofjudicial notice will afford the adversary an opportunity to comment on whether a

-5-

factual matter is truly incontestable. In the absence of advance notice, a requestto be heard made promptly after the fact should be considered timely.

This provision takes no position on the effect of judicial notice in civil orcriminal cases, or on the issue of appropriate instructions to the jury with respectto facts noticed. In Williams v. Commonwealth, 190 Va. 280, 292, 56 S.E.2d537, 542 (1949), the court observed in a criminal case that, after judicial noticehas been taken, "the opponent is not prevented fi-om disputing the matter, if hebelieves it disputable." This doctrine allows a criminal defendant to contest ajudicially noticed fact, which avoids any constitutional issues about the taking ofnotice against a criminal defendant.

ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCY, POLICY, ANDCHARACTER

§ 404. CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE TOPROVE CONDUCT; EXCEPTIONS; OTHERCRIMES

NOTESubsection (a). The general rule excluding character proof is Virginia

law. Williams v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 837, 127 S.E.2d 423 (1962)(criminal case); Commonwealth. ex tel. Davis v. Malbon, 195 Va. 368, 78S.E.2d 683 (1953); S.H. Kress & Co. v. Roberts, 143 Va. 71, 129 S.E. 244(1925) (civil proceeding); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Burkholder, .116Va. 942, 83 S.E. 404 (1914). Subsections (1) and (2) generally apply to criminalcases while subsection (3) applies to civil and criminal cases. Note: Isolated actsof prior bad conduct are not admissible on this basis in civil or criminal cases. SeeMcMinn v. Rounds, 267 Va. 277, 591 S.E.2d 694 (2004) (admissibility incertain civil cases).

(1) The exception to the general rule of exclusion permits a criminaldefendant to introduce evidence of his character, Barlow v. Commonwealth,224 Va. 338, 297 S.E.2d 645 (1982), and once he has opened the door by doingso, allows the Commonwealth to introduce rebuttal character evidence. Zirkle v.Commonwealth, 189 Va. 862, 871, 55 S.E.2d 24, 29 (1949); Roach v.Commonwealth, 157 Va. 954, 961, 162 S.E. 50, 52 (1932); see Gravely v.Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 560, 414 S.E.2d 190 (1992). See alsoArgenbrightv, Commonwealth, 57~Va.App. 94, 698 S~E,2d 294 (2010)(admissibility ofCliaracter p~oof regarding tr~hful~e~ss ahd =law~hbid~ness- onthe issue of g~ih a fo~gery/mon~y by)~lse ~r~hse~ ~a~e~,:afid ~ the iSsue ofcredibility of ~el defenddnt as:a [wit~esS:, .s~anda~dS £or ~h~racter Witnesstestimony discoidal): Note that the exception for reputational proof of characteris limited to criminal proceedings. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v.Burkholder, 116 Va. 942, 945, 83 S.E. 404, 405-06 (1914); see Jackson v.Commonwealth, 266 Va. 423, 587 S.E.2d 532 (2003).

-6-

§ 405. METHODS OF PROVING CHARACTER

testimony except upon personal knowledge of the reputation. Oncross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specificinstances of conduct.

(b) Specific instances of conduct. In cases in whichcharacter or a trait of character of a person is an essential elementof a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specificinstances of conduct of such person on direct or cross-examinationof a character witness.

NOTESubdivision (a). This provision limits the kind of evidence that may be

used to prove character when character evidence is admissible. Current Virginialaw recognizes only reputation testimony. See Marable v. Commonwealth, 142Va. 644, 128 S.E. 463 (1925); S~Argenb~igh~v~ Commonwealth, 57Va!Ap~::~9~i" ~8 S~E. 2 d 294 (20i0)!

ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY

§ 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS

NOTE

Subdivision (c). Velazquez v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 95, 557S.E.2d 213 (2002); Cantrell v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 387, 395-96, 329S.E.2d 22, 28 (1985); Spruili v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475, 479, 271 S.E.2d419, 421 (1980). Expert testimony concerning the veracity of witnesses is notadmissible. See James v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 95, 97, 487 S.E.2d 205, 206(1997).

General requirements. The Virginia Supreme Court has held that anexpert need not be the most qualified person; it is sufficient if the witness hassufficient credentials to assist the fact-finder, even if others might be morequalified. See, e.g., Rollins v, Commonwealth, 207 Va. 575, 580-81, 151 S.E.2d622, 625-26 (1966) (psychologist permitted to give expert testimony on mentalcondition); see Wood v. Bass Pro Shops, 250 Va. 297, 462 S.E.2d 101 (1995);see also Hegwood v. Virginia Natural Gas, Inc., 256 Va. 362, 505 S.E.2d 372(1998) (scope of expertise): See gen~raIly CNH America LLC v. Smith, 281 Va.60, 70~ SiEi2d 372 (2011)(adequate foundation needed; failure to pe, rform tests,sc0pe 0f.~kperhSe; failure to limit general soent~fic principles testlm0nYap~[~! ,

-7-

With respect to damage projections, see ITT Hartford Group, Inc. v.Virginia Fin. Assocs., Inc., 258 Va. 193, 520 S.E.2d 355 (1999), appeal afterremand, 266 Va. 177, 585 S.E.2d 789 (2003); Lockheed Info. Mgmt. Sys. Co.

§ 703. BASIS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

NOTE

Subdivision (a). Virginia Code § 8.01-401.1 governs civil actions. Itallows experts to base opinion testimony on any material normally considered inthe discipline involved, even if that information would be inadmissible inevidence. See Holmes v. Doe, 257 Va. 573, 515 S.E.2d 117 (1999) (testimony ongeneral principles); Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 527 S.E.2d 137 (2000); see alsoState Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 254 Va. 206, 491 S.E.2d 286(1997) (party may qualify as expert).

Expert testimony is admissible in civil cases when it is based on anadequate factual foundation. Countryside Corp. v. Taylor, 263 Va. 549, 561S.E.2d 680 (2002); see Va. Code §§ 8.01-401.1, -401.3; Bussey v. E.S.C. Rests.,Inc., 270 Va. 531, 620 S.E.2d 764 (2005); Lawson v. Doe, 239 Va. 477, 482-83,391 S.E.2d 333, 336 (1990); Clark v. Chapman, 238 Va. 655, 664-65, 385S.E.2d 885, 891 (1989). Expert testimony is inadmissible if it is speculative orfounded on assumptions that have no basis in fact. Blue Ridge Serv. Corp. v.Saxon Shoes, Inc., 271 Va. 206, 624 S.E.2d 55 (2006) (causation of firedamage); Vasquez v. Mabini, 269 Va. 155, 606 S.E.2d 809 (2005) (testimonyon loss of earning capacity); Countryside Corp., 263 Va. 549, 561 S.E.2d 680;John v. Ira, 263 Va. 315, 559 S.E.2d 694 (2000); see Gilbert v. Summers, 240Va. 155, 159-60, 393 S.E.2d 213, 215 (1990); Cassady v. Martin, 220 Va.1093, 1100, 266 S,E,2d 104, 108 (1980).Seege~era~l!YC~H~er~caLLC~:Smith~ 281 va:~60, 704 S,E.2d 372 (201i)(ad6q~h~ f6~hd~i0n ne~ded~ faiiffreto pe~fo~h i~sts::~ns~pPorted ~fa~tual assumpti6~§)i Additionally experttestimony is inadmissible if the expert fails to consider all the variables that bearupon the inferences to be deduced from the facts observed. John, 263 Va. 315,559 S.E.2d 694; Griffin v. Spacemaker Group, Inc., 254 Va. 141, 146, 486S.E.2d 541, 544 (1997); Tittsworth v. Robinson, 252 Va. 151, 154, 475 S.E.2d261, 263 (1996).

ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY

§ 802. HEARSAY RULE

Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rulesor by Virginia statutes or case law.

NOTE

-8-

This section states the basic hearsay exclusionary rule, long a feature ofVirginia law, and is similar to the rules of all states. Its terms contain a savingsclause to preserve any existing or future statutory or case law exceptions notcovered by the rules. See Decipher, Inc. v. iTRiBE, Inc., 262 Va. 588, 553S.E.2d 718 (2001) ("Generally, the hearsay rule precludes a witness fromquoting from, or summarizing the contents of, even admissible records until theyhave been received in evidence").

ALERT

HEARSAY AND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE

conclusions:

Out~f-cou.rt statements that are not offered-.forthe truth of what they say are not-hearsayunder Virginia law, and do not violate theConfrontation Clause principles. Hodges v.Commonwealth, 27~Va~ ~118, 634 S.E~2d 680

~2006)-(applying Crawford v. Washington,41.UIS. 36, 59 n19(20~1), and Tennessee V.

Street, 471 U.S. ~109 (1985)); see also Thomasv. Comhohwealth, 279 Va. 131, 688S.E.2d220 (2010).

standard); Davis v:.Washingtoni ~547u:S;813, 830 (2006) (two �onsblidated decisionsaddressing admissibi~ty of 9 :and

-9-

use

q~nthreat~

Dying ~deCt~rations. Satterwhite v." Commonwealth, 56

Clause requirement). See als0Hill v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. ’(2 Gratt.) 594 (1845).

testimonial)::

"911" CallsJ Wilde~ v: Com~bnwealth, 55Vm App::579,

-ll-

§ 803. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS: AVAILABILITY OFDECLARANT IMMATERIAL

NOTE

This section identifies exceptions to the hearsay rule that do not dependon the unavailability of the declarant.

Exception (2). A statement comes within the excited utterance exceptionto the hearsay rule, and is admissible to prove the truth of the matter stated,when the statement is spontaneous and impulsive, prompted by a startlingevent, and is made at such time and under such circumstances as to preclude thepresmnption that it was made as the result of deliberation. Goins v.Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 470 S.E.2d 114 (1996); Braxton v.Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 176, 493 S.E.2d 688 (1997). In addition, thedeclarant must have firsthand knowledge of the startling event. Goins, 251 Va.at 460, 407 S.E.2d at 126. The decision whether the statement qualifies as anexcited utterance lies within the discretion of the trial court. Clark v.Commonwealth, 235 Va. 287, 292, 367 S.E.2d 483, 486 (1988). Admissibleexcited utterances may either describe an event or relate to it, and must be madeat any time during the duration of the condition of excitement. Doe v. Thomas,227 Va. 466, 318 S.E.2d 382 (1984); Goins v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 285,237 S.E.2d 136 (1977); Esser v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 520, 566 S.E.2d876 (2002) (startling event need not be the crime itself). See::PerryV.Commonwed~th;:~ Va.App. ,~. S.E.2d ~- , 2011 Vm App.~S262(2011)

Exception (29). This statute was updated in 2006 and provides both forthe admissibility of recognized tabulations of motor vehicle value, such as"NADA" price books, and for the admissibility of other evidence with respect tovehicle value.does not viq!ate;a ~l’defehdant S" Co~t~fi~ :Claude ~igh[~:. Waik~r v,Commonwed~th;~81Va,:: 227; :704:S,E:gd i2~01i).

-12-

§ 804. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS; DECLARANTUNAVAILABLE

NOTEThis section defines hearsay exceptions that are conditioned upon a

showing that the declarant is unavailable.

Subdivision (a) sets forth a general requirement of unavailability thatapplies to all the exceptions in § 804(b). Other than the obvious example that adead declarant cannot be called to testify at the trial, the section does notattempt to define all of the circumstances that may be found to establishunavailability. See, e.g., Morris v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 145, 326 S.E.2d693 (1985). See ~enerally McDonnough v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 120,486 S.E.2d 570 (1997). It must be shown that a missing witness was sought"dihgently" before unavailability will be determined. See Ayala v. AggressiveTowing & Transp., Inc., 276 Va. 169, 661 S.E.2d 480 (2008); Harris v.Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 735, 667 S.E.2d 809 (2008); Morgan v.Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 369, 650 S.E.2d 541 (2007); Bennett v.Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 335, 533 S.E.2d 22 (2000). The law is firmlyestablished in Virginia that a declarant is unavailable if the declarant invokesthe Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent. Paden v. Commonwealth, 259Va. 595, 529 S.E.2d 792 (2000); Newberry v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 445,462, 61 S.E.2d 318, 326 (1950); see also Nowlin v. Commonwealth, 40 Va.App. 327, 579 S.E.2d 367 (2003) (valid claim of spousal privilege asunavailability). Other grounds lack extensive case law, but examples includedeclarants who are missing, or who are known to reside out-of-state. In gendral,before admitting hearsay under these principles, the court must be satisfied "thata sufficient reason is shown why the original witness is not produced." Gray v.Graham, 231 Va. 1, 5, 341 S.E.2d 153, 155 (1986) (quoting Director Generalof Railroads v. Gordon, 134 Va. 381, 390, 114 S.E. 668, 670 (1922)). Theproponent of the evidence under these exceptions generally bears the burden ofsatisfying the court that the declarant is unavailable. The Court of Appeals inJones v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 46, 51, 467 S.E.2d 841, 844 (1996) (lackof memory as unavailability), has adopted the following list of possible grounds todemonstrate unavailability:

(1) The declarant is dead. (2) The declarant is too ill totestify. (3) The declarant is insane. (4) The declarant isabsent from the state and the party is unable to obtain thedeclarant’s deposition. (5) The party has been unable bydiligent inquiry to locate the declarant. (6) The declarantcannot be compelled to testify. (7) The opposite party hascaused the declarant’s absence.

Upon persistent refusal to testify after judicial pressure and an order totestify, or demonstrated bona fide lack of memory, the testimony of a witnessmay be declared unavailable. Sappv. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 415, 559S.E.2d 645 (2002). se.eTurne~v.~i:C~monwealth, ~ ~Va.A-pp: , ~:S:E.2d

Fi’n~liY no~ th~ th~ Supreme cour~

held in Smith v. Givens, 223 Va. 455, 290 SoE.2d 844 (1982), that failur.e totake a deposition of a witness living in Indiana meant that she was not shown tohave been "unavailable" for purposes of the hearsay exception for pedigreestatements. This list is not exclusive, and other grounds, such as lack ofrecollection, have been held sufficient to demonstrate unavailability. See Jones,

-13-

22 Va. App. at 51, 467 S.E.2d at 844 ("A witness’s ’unavailability’ is establishedif the court is satisfied that ’a sufficient reason is shown why the original witnessis not produced."); c[. Sapp, 263 Va. 415, 559 S.E.2d 645 (discussion of fear andlack of memory as grounds for unavailability); Schneider v. Commonwealth,47 Va. App. 609, 625 S.E.2d 688 {2006) (judicial pressure to require testimony,applying Sapp); Rahnema v. Rahnema, 47 Va. App. 645, 626 S.E.2d 448(2006) (failure to depose witness).

Exception (b)(6) invokes the statutory provisions of Va. Code § 8.01-397,the "dead man’s statute." See 1924 Leonard Rd., L.L.C. v. Van Roekel, 272 Va.543, 636 S.E.2d 378 (2006}. See generally Virginia Home for Boys & Girls v.Phillips, 279 Va. 279, 688 S.E.2d 284 (2010) (corroboration outside theplaintiffs own testimony is required); Williams v. Condit, 265 Va. 49, 574S.E.2d 241 (2003} (application of the corroboration requirement); Diehl v.Butts, 255 Va. 482, 499 S.E.2d 833 (1998) (heightened corroboration requiredin fiduciary relationships); Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 204, 503S.E.2d 241 (1998) (rule inapplicable where decedent is not party). The statutemust be read in light of case law. See Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 563S.E.2d 727 (2002); Rice v. Charles, 260 Va. 157, 532 S.E.2d 318. ~2000);

ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION

§ 901. REQUIREMENT OF AUTHENTICATION ORIDENTIFICATION

The requirement of authentication or identification as acondition precedent to ad~nissibility is satisfied by evidencesufficient to support a finding that the thing in question is whatits proponent claims.

NOTE

Other. Statutes may designate the forms of authentication, and case law mayaddress the requirements for specific circumstances. For example, the GeneralAssembly has enacted statutes bearing on treatment of signature requirementsin the electronic age. See Va. Code §§ 59.1-487 through 59.1-497; and §§ 2.2-4103,612-20~: 6.2-2014, 8.1A-108, 8.7-103, 55-551.02, and 59.1-501.2, and §§ 2.2-2007,4.1-209.1, 4.1-212.1, 17.1-258.4, 24.2-424, 38.2-1802, and Rule 1:17. A criminalCode provision addressing a similar concern is § 18.2-186.3.

-14-

§ 902. SELF-AUTHENTICATION

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedentto admissibility is not required with respect to the following:

(1) Domestic public documents under seal.Reserved. See infra § 902(4).

(2) Domestic public documents not under seal.Reserved. See in[ra § 902(4).

(3) Foreign public documents.A documentpurporting to be executed or attested in his official capacity by aperson authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make theexecution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certificationas to the genuineness of the signature and official position (i)ofthe executing or attesting person, or (ii)of any foreign officialwhose certificate of genuineness of signature and official positionrelates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain ofcertification of genuineness of signature and official positionrelating to the execution or attestation. A final certification maybe made by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general,consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or adiplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned oraccredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity hasbeen given to all parties to investigate the authenticity andaccuracy of official documents, the court may for good cause shownorder that they be treated as presumptively authentic withoutfinal certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attestedsummary with or without final certification.

§ 16:i-69.40.~:;~Powers and duties of clerks

of each

(13) Specific certificates of analysis and reports.Various Virginia statutes make provisions for use of reports andcertificates of analysis prepared by designated facilities:

§ 19.2-187. Admissioninto evidence of certaincertificates of analysis.

0r

L~.~bOratory of thethe U.S. Secret

-16-

lS

§ 19.2-187.01. Certificate of analysis as evidence ofchain of custody o~ material described therein.

-17-

NOTE

Subdivision (4). Virginia Code §§ 8.01-389 to -395 allow properlycertified public records to be authenticated without additional extrinsic evidence.This section continues that practice. See supra § 803(27); Taylor v.Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 1, 502 S.E.2d 113 (1998); see also Williams v.Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 545, 546 S.E.2d 735 (2001) (hearsay andauthentication issues)¯ On the admissibility of government records, see FrankShop, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 261 Va. 169, 540 S.E.2d 897

useof Distric~ ~(~u~:~e~rd~ s~: CS~e § i6:~:69.4o

Subdivision (5). Virginia Code § 8.01-388 requires a court to takejudicial notice of the contents of all official publications. These evidenceprinciples are consistent with the Code provisions.

Subsection (6). See Va. Code § 8.01-419.1 (admissibility of establishedtables of value for y~hi~!es). ~or d~fin~i~tions :Of official publicationsl includingposting on officiO! :w~b~it~: See :C0d~ § :8 011385.

-18-

99997.013009 EMF US 36984847vl