Norman Michael Roberts v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1535162

Background

In April 2015 police received a tip and surveilled a house where occupants were alleged to be manufacturing methamphetamine; Detective Wright observed appellant and others moving between the house and detached garage and saw appellant swing a bottle in a manner consistent with a one‑pot ("shake‑and‑bake") meth cook.
Wright queried the NPLEx database and found purchases and attempted purchases of pseudoephedrine attributed to appellant and four housemates from Aug. 25, 2014 to June 30, 2015; he received alerts when purchases were attempted.
A May 20, 2015 search of the property uncovered items consistent with meth manufacture and use (starter fluid, lithium batteries, cold packs, coffee filters, empty pseudoephedrine packages) and a soda bottle containing crystalline residue. Forensics confirmed meth/pseudoephedrine on seized items.
After arrest, Wright searched appellant’s room and found items (bottles, foil, starter fluid, a blender with white residue) consistent with meth production and use; recorded jail calls captured appellant admitting buying meth and acknowledging frequent pseudoephedrine purchases.
A co‑resident testified appellant was the only person who knew how to make meth and that he bought pseudoephedrine for appellant in exchange for meth; appellant testified he did not cook meth and claimed his ID had been stolen and used to make the pharmacy purchases.
At trial the court admitted the NPLEx records under the business‑records exception; on appeal the court assumed without deciding the admission was erroneous but held any error harmless because the other evidence was overwhelming.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of NPLEx records under the business‑records exception	Records were properly admitted as business records required to be kept under statute; foundation was sufficient	Admission was improper because detective’s testimony did not adequately authenticate NPLEx computerized records	Court assumed without deciding the records were inadmissible but held any error harmless because other evidence overwhelmingly proved guilt
Harmless‑error standard for non‑constitutional evidentiary error	N/A (Commonwealth relied on all admissible evidence)	Admission of NPLEx records substantially influenced the jury and requires reversal	Non‑constitutional error standard applies; error harmless if it did not substantially influence the finder of fact; here error was harmless given corroborating physical, testimonial, and recorded statements

Key Cases Cited

Whitfield v. Commonwealth, 265 Va. 358 (2003) (appellate standard viewing evidence in favor of Commonwealth)
Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253 (2001) (standard for non‑constitutional error / harmlessness)
White v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 411 (2017) (error may be harmless when other evidence is overwhelming)
Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 695 (2010) (harmless‑error must be considered in context of entire case)
Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681 (2011) (jury may accept or reject defendant’s testimony)
Morrill v. State, 184 So. 3d 541 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (custodian affidavit sufficient to admit NPLEx records)
Embrey v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (NPLEx records admissible with proper foundation)
State v. Hicks, 777 S.E.2d 341 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015) (investigating officer’s testimony sufficient to admit NPLEx records; error harmless where other evidence ample)