Magruder v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1982-05-4 (Va. App. 3/13/2007)
| Decision Date | 13 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1982-05-4. |
| Parties | MICHAEL RICARDO MAGRUDER, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of Winchester John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge.
Joseph R. Winston, Special Appellate Counsel (Office of Appellate Defender, on briefs), for appellant.
(Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General; William E. Thro, State Solicitor General; Stephen R. McCullough, Deputy State Solicitor General; Alice T. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General II, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.
Present: Judges Elder, Haley and Senior Judge Annunziata.
Michael Ricardo Magruder (appellant) was convicted of possessing cocaine. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting a certificate of analysis without requiring the testimony of the person who performed the analysis, in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
This issue is controlled by Brooks v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 155, 638 S.E.2d 131 (2006). There, under circumstances such as those here presented, we held 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," id. at 168, 638 S.E.2d at 138, and that "the procedure in Code §§ 19.2-187 and 19.2-187.1 adequately protects a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights," id. at 158, 638 S.E.2d at 133.
The analysis in Brooks is applicable with equal force here and is conclusive of the question presented. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in admitting the certificate of analysis, and we affirm appellant's conviction.
Affirmed.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
To continue reading
Request your trial