Boggs v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Boggs v. Commonwealth

187 S.E.2d 204, 212 Va. 658, 1972 Va. LEXIS 227

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedMarch 6, 1972

DocketRecord No. 7768

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 S.E.2d 204 (Boggs v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boggs v. Commonwealth, 187 S.E.2d 204, 212 Va. 658, 1972 Va. LEXIS 227 (Va. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Clarence W. Boggs, the defendant, was charged on a warrant with refusing to submit to a test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. He was convicted, and his operator’s license was suspended for a period of ninety days. Code § 18.1-55.1 (n). On appeal, he contends that his conviction should be reversed and the charge dismissed because the certificate of the committing justice certifying his refusal was not attached to the warrant as required by Code § 18.1-55.1 (k).

Code § 18.1-55.1 (k) does provide that “the certificate of the committing justice¹ . . . shall be attached to the warrant and shall be forwarded by the committing justice ... to the court in which the [659]*659offense of driving under the influence of intoxicants shall be tried.” And it is true that th'e certificate was not attached to the warrant when this case was tried in the trial court. But it does not follow that the defendant is entitled to dismissal because of that defect.

Under Code § 18.1-55.1 (m), the certificate of th'e committing justice is made “prima facie evidence that the defendant refused to submit to the taking of a sample of his blood to determine the alcoholic content thereof.” ² Lacking a certificate, the Commonwealth is not entitled to the benefit of this provision of the statute. It may, however, prove the refusal by other evidence. The refusal was proved by other evidence in this case, and so we reject the defendant’s contention and affirm his conviction.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Clarence W. Boggs, the defendant, was charged on a warrant with refusing to submit to a test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. He was convicted, and his operator’s license was suspended for a period of ninety days. Code § 18.1-55.1 (n). On appeal, he contends that his conviction should be reversed and the charge dismissed because the certificate of the committing justice certifying his refusal was not attached to the warrant as required by Code § 18.1-55.1 (k).

Code § 18.1-55.1 (k) does provide that “the certificate of the committing justice¹ . . . shall be attached to the warrant and shall be forwarded by the committing justice ... to the court in which the [659]*659offense of driving under the influence of intoxicants shall be tried.” And it is true that th'e certificate was not attached to the warrant when this case was tried in the trial court. But it does not follow that the defendant is entitled to dismissal because of that defect.

Under Code § 18.1-55.1 (m), the certificate of th'e committing justice is made “prima facie evidence that the defendant refused to submit to the taking of a sample of his blood to determine the alcoholic content thereof.” ² Lacking a certificate, the Commonwealth is not entitled to the benefit of this provision of the statute. It may, however, prove the refusal by other evidence. The refusal was proved by other evidence in this case, and so we reject the defendant’s contention and affirm his conviction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E.2d 204, 212 Va. 658, 1972 Va. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boggs-v-commonwealth-va-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack