Ermais Samson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
0528164
| Va. Ct. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- On April 1, 2015, Officer Adkins found appellant Ermias Samson in the passenger seat of a parked car; officer smelled marijuana and found a white plastic bag with individually bagged marijuana near Samson’s feet.
- Samson was arrested and later indicted for possession with intent to sell marijuana under Code § 18.2-248.1(a)(2).
- The Commonwealth provided Samson a certificate of analysis from the Department of Forensic Science showing fingerprints on the bags belonged to the driver, not Samson (exculpatory evidence).
- The Commonwealth did not subpoena the forensic scientist and did not file the certificate with the clerk because it did not intend to introduce the certificate at trial; Samson likewise did not file it.
- Immediately before trial, the Commonwealth moved to exclude the certificate; the trial court excluded it under Code § 19.2-187 for failure to file seven days before trial.
- Samson appealed, arguing the trial court misinterpreted § 19.2-187 and incorrectly prevented him from introducing the exculpatory certificate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in excluding a certificate of analysis that the defense sought to admit without filing it seven days before trial | Samson: § 19.2-187.1(ii) permits admission because he did not object to the certificate’s admission and the Commonwealth satisfied § 19.2-187.1(A) requirements | Commonwealth: § 19.2-187 requires filing by the moving party seven days before trial; § 19.2-187.1 only governs certificates the Commonwealth intends to offer | Court: Affirmed exclusion — defendant must comply with § 19.2-187 filing requirement; § 19.2-187.1 applies only when Commonwealth offers the certificate, so it does not allow defendant to bypass the seven‑day filing rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprouse v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 488 (trial court’s evidentiary-discretion standard)
- Burns v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 243 (interpretation of statute reviewed de novo)
- Farrakhan v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 177 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Loudoun Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Etzold, 245 Va. 80 (plain-meaning rule of statutory construction)
- Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 836 (avoidance of strained or absurd statutory constructions)
- Eastlack v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 120 (more specific statute controls over general statute)