Williams v. Com.
| Decision Date | 12 June 1972 |
| Citation | 189 S.E.2d 378,213 Va. 45 |
| Parties | Bernard Marice WILLIAMS, etc. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
JeRoyd W. Greene, Jr., Richmond (Greene, Buxton & Poindexter, Richmond on brief), for plaintiff in error.
James E. Kulp, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN and HARMAN, JJ.
Bernard Marice Williams, 1 defendant, was tried by a jury, convicted, and sentenced to twenty years in the State penitentiary for selling narcotic drugs to a minor on March 6, 1969, in violation of Code § 54--488. We granted defendant a writ of error limited solely to the question of whether copies of the arrest records of Billy Ray McHenry, filed by the Virginia Beach Police Department with the Central Criminal Records Exchange pursuant to Code § 19.1--19.3(a), were admissible for the purpose of showing his age at the time he purchased the narcotic drugs.
The record shows that McHenry, who was serving a sentence at the Southampton Prison Farm for several felony convictions, was not called as a witness. The only evidence offered as to his age consisted of copies of the Exchange records presented by the police officer who had recorded the information thereon as it was told to him by McHenry. The trial court limited the use of the records to those portions indicating McHenry's age.
Section 19.1--19.3(a), Code of 1950, as amended, 1960 Repl.Vol., 1971 Cum.Supp., provides in part that:
The form prescribed by the Exchange for the making of the report requires the local police to show the name and address of the person arrested, his age and date of birth, certain personal characteristics, and his place of employment, in addition to the offense charged and the circumstances of the arrest.
Section 8--266, Code of 1950, as amended, 1957 Repl.Vol., 1971 Cum.Supp., provides that a copy of any record or paper in the office of the Central Criminal Records Exchange 'may be admitted as evidence in lieu of the original.'
It is a generally recognized rule that records and reports prepared by public officials pursuant to a duty imposed by statute, or required by the nature of their offices, are admissible as proof of the facts stated therein. 30 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 991, at 121; 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 626, at 793. But the mere fact that a record or report qualifies as a public document does not automatically overcome the hearsay objection unless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adjei v. Commonwealth
...546 S.E.2d 735, 739 (2001). Generally, these documents “are admissible as proof of the facts stated therein.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 45, 46, 189 S.E.2d 378, 379 (1972). “The underlying rationale which justifies admitting facts contained in official records as an exception to the ......
-
Tickel v. Com.
...the admission of certain official public documents without the necessity of producing the actual record keeper. In Williams v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 45, 189 S.E.2d 378 (1972), a defendant was convicted of selling drugs to a minor. The only evidence of the minor's age was his arrest record. ......
-
Smoot v. Com.
...by statute, or required by the nature of their offices, are admissible as proof of the facts stated therein." Williams v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 45, 46, 189 S.E.2d 378, 379 (1972). In Ingram v. Commonwealth, 1 Va.App. 335, 338 S.E.2d 657 (1986), we held that the official records of the Divis......
-
Crawley v. Com.
...by statute, or required by the nature of their offices, are admissible as proof of the facts stated therein." Williams v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 45, 46, 189 S.E.2d 378, 379 (1972); see Code § 19.2-390 (requiring, in part, that every person arrested for a felony be fingerprinted and the finge......