Jackie Costello Ingram v Commonwealth

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Overton

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

JACKIE COSTELLO INGRAM

Vv. Record Nos. 0721-95-4 and MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
0722-95-4 JUDGE ROSEMARTE ANNUNZIATA

JANUARY 23, 1996
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
William L. Winston, Judge
Conrad C. Gaarder, for appellant.
John K. Bynum, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General (James S. Gilmore III, Attorney

General; Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.

Following a jury trial on October 12, 1994, appellant,
Jackie Costello Ingram ("Ingram"), was convicted of distribution
of an imitation controlled substance within 1000 feet of school
property and distribution of an imitation controlled substance.
Ingram was sentenced, respectively, to three years imprisonment
and $1500 and one year and $500. On appeal, Ingram contends the
trial court erred in admitting into evidence a certified
photocopy of the original Certificate of Analysis. We disagree
and affirm.

Ingram sold imitation crack cocaine to an undercover police
officer within 100 yards of an elementary school. At trial, the

Commonwealth sought to introduce into evidence a certified

"Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
photocopy of the original Certificate of Analysis, previously
identified by a Commonwealth witness as a "xeroxed copy of the
original certificate for analysis." 	Ingram's contention that the
photocopy was hearsay and that only the original could be
admitted is without merit.
First, Ingram waived his claim because he did not accept the
Commonwealth's offer to retrieve the original certificate after
the court asked Ingram if he wanted it. 	See Rule 5A:18. 	Ingram
cannot invite error and then take advantage of the situation he
created. 	See, e.g., Manns v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 677,
679-80, 414 S.E.2d 613, 615 (1992).
Second, even absent waiver, the trial court's decision must
be affirmed. 	As a matter of law, official records shall be
received as evidence when authenticated and certified by the
clerk to be a true record. 	Code § 8.01-389(A). 	A copy of such a
record is admissible if it is authenticated. 	Code § 8.01-391(C);
Proctor v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 937, 938-39, 419 S.E.2d 867,
867-68 (1992). 	"Authenticated" and "certified" are synonymous
terms in this context. 	Owens v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 309,
311, 391 S.E.2d 605, 605-06 (1990) (concluding that clerk's
certification of copy of record properly authenticated record
pursuant to Code § 8.01-389). 	The clerk's certification that the
document in this case is a true copy meets the statutory standard
for admissibility. 	Accordingly, the appellant's conviction is
affirmed.

Affirmed.
- 3 -