Business/Official Records
Category > Business/Official Records
Supreme Court clarifies scope of records admissible as business or official records.In a decision written by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court held that certificates showing the results of chemical testing of drugs were inadmissible unless the analysts who conducted the tests testified at trial. In so ruling, the Court rejected the argument that the certificates were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The Court held that records “created for the administration of an entity’s affairs” are not “testimonial” and may be admitted without the testimony of the person who created the record. By contrast, a record created for the sole purpose of providing evidence against a defendant is admissible under the Confrontation Clause only if the person who created the record testifies. Although the Court held that an affidavit authenticating an existing public record may be admissible without the testimony of the affiant, “a clerk’s attesting to the fact that the clerk had searched for a particular relevant record and failed to find it” would be admissible only if the clerk who prepared the certificate testified.id: 21435
The trial court erred in admitting a store receipt under the business records hearsay exception absent testimony from the store’s custodian of records.At defendant’s child molest trial, the prosecution proffered evidence of a sales receipt from a Bath and Body Works store. It memorialized certain out-of-court statements whose relevance was grounded in the truth of the matter asserted and was thus hearsay. The trial court erred in admitting the receipt under the business records exception to the hearsay rule because the police officer was not a “qualified witness” in lieu of the store’s’ custodian of records.id: 20748
License suspension was set aside where the forensic report was prepared by an unsupervised forensic analyst trainee.A forensic alcohol report becomes an official record of the DMV, and thus admissible at an administrative per se hearing, if it complies with the requirements governing the admission of evidence. However, the instant trial court properly set aside the suspension finding the tests were performed by unsupervised, and thus unqualified, forensic analyst trainees.id: 15522
The court erred in admitting evidence under the business records hearsay exception obtained from a computer system maintained by the police department including facts of sex crimes from various police reports.Evidence obtained from Sherlock, an in-house computer system maintained by the sex crimes unit of the San Diego Police Department for investigative purposes was improperly introduced under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. (Evidence Code section 1271.) The fact that hearsay evidence (facts from police reports of sex crimes) is put into a log and then again into a computer in the normal course of business does not render such evidence nonhearsay when it is retrieved from the computer even when most of the requirements are met. Reversal was required under the Watson standard given the prosecution's reliance on the testimony of the crime analyst concerning Sherlock.id: 9822
Records maintained by domestic violence hotline were improperly admitted under the business records hearsay exception.At defendant's spousal battery trial the court erred by admitting records maintained by the crisis hotline center the alleged victim called after the beating. The forms were not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule since the employees who recorded the information did not have knowledge of the facts reported. Rather, the content was derived from the hearsay statements of the alleged victim who had no official duty to observe and report the facts. The forms were analogous to police reports, probation reports and psych evaluations. However, the error in admitting the evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.id: 18308
Updated 2/4/2024Prison records and state hospital records reflecting statements made by or about the defendant were properly admitted at his SVP trial.Defendant argued the trial court at his Sexually Violent Predator trial erred by permitting the prosecution to introduce into evidence notes made by prison officials between 2002 and 2009 reflecting statements made by or about defendant, and notes made by treatment providers. The prison and hospital records were authenticated and made admissible under the public records or business records hearsay exception. Defendant’s statements were admissible under the party admission exception. Admission of the records did not violate due process or Evidence Code section 352.id: 27302
ATM photos were properly admitted under the business record hearsay exception. The trial court did not err by admitting the ATM photos as a business record. The photos were computer generated and maintained by Wells Fargo to track customer transactions. Because they were computer generated, foundational testimony showing the accuracy and reliability of the photos was not required. And because the photos were not testimonial there was no confrontation clause violation. id: 23810
Defendant’s cell phone records and the testimony regarding the call log information seen on the cell phone were properly admitted under the business records hearsay exception.Defendant argued a computer printout produced by human query of a computer system that maintains cell phone data in the regular course of business does not fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule. However, a printed spreadsheet of call data produced for purposes of trial does fall within the business records exception (Evidence Code section 1271) where the underlying data is kept and maintained by a reliable computer program in the regular course of business and the other prongs of section 1271 are met.id: 23182
SART photos used by the doctor to support his opinion were not testimonial evidence for confrontation clause purposes and were not hearsay, but rather, demonstrative evidence.Defendant was convicted of sexual activity with a 13 year-old girl. He argued the trial court erred in admitting the SART photos of the victim upon which the state’s doctor relied in rendering his opinion. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the photos were properly authenticated by the witness who described in detail the procedures used in creating and preserving the evidence. Moreover, admission of the evidence did not violate the confrontation clause because the photos were not hearsay but rather probative demonstrative evidence of a physical trauma suffered by the victim.id: 23095
Admission of testimony by a criminalist about another criminalist’s DNA report which was a contemporaneous recording of observable events did not violate the confrontation clause under Melendez-Diaz. The defense argued the criminalist’s DNA report was testimonial hearsay, and because she did not testify at trial or the preliminary hearing, admission of the report violated his right of confrontation under Melendez-Diaz. However, the court was bound by People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, which held that the admission of such a report does not violate the confrontation clause if it was a contemporaneous recording of observable events, which the testifying criminalist said it was. The court also did not err by admitting the record under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.id: 21772
Lab report showing blood test results was admissible at the DMV hearing under the public employee records hearsay exception.The lab report of the suspected drunk driver’s blood test results was admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule and should have been admitted at defendant’s DMV hearing.id: 21157
Log sheets were properly admitted under the business records hearsay exception even though they were incomplete and lacked order in certain respects.The prosecution introduced “log sheets” recording driver’s name and license plate number each time a truck entered the pulp mill. The log sheets were properly admitted under the business records exception. That the log sheets omitted the names of certain drivers showed they were incomplete, not untrustworthy. Likewise, that the logs were recorded by more than one person and included entries on different locations in the sheets did not show the evidence to be untrustworthy. Finally, admitting copies of the records did not violate the best evidence rule (in effect at the time of trial) where there was no evidence showing the originals were intentionally withheld or destroyed.id: 20492
Report of director of rehab center was admissible at the hearing to determine the deferred entry of judgment program.Defendant argued he should not have been found to be in violation of the deferred entry of judgment program because the finding was based on inadmissible hearsay. The evidence in question was a single page report from the program manager of a drug rehab center. The report said he was terminated for attending none of the 20 sessions. However, the report was prepared in response to a referral from the court and was sufficiently reliable to admit. Moreover, any error in admitting the report was harmless in light of defendant's earlier admission that he had not undergone counseling due to financial and transportation difficulties.id: 17278
Computer printouts showing when files were accessed was not inadmissible hearsay if the computer was acting properly at the time of the printout.Defendant was charged with misappropriating a trade secret and taking data from his former employer's computer system. He argued the court erred in admitting computer printouts of when computer files were last accessed. He claimed the evidence was hearsay and the printouts of the access dates did not constitute business records under Evidence Code section 1271. However, the true test for admissibility of a printout reflecting a computer's internal operations is not whether the printout was made in the regular course of business, as defendant suggested, but whether the computer was operating properly at the time of the printout. The court did not err in rejecting the hearsay objection and admitting the evidence.id: 16839
CLETS computer printouts are admissible under the official records exception to the hearsay rule as evidence that defendant served prison terms for prior convictions.Uncertified computer printouts reporting criminal history information are admissible as evidence that a defendant alleged to be a habitual offender served prison terms for prior felony convictions. The trial court did not err in admitting the printouts under the official records exception to the hearsay rule - Evidence Code section 1280.id: 16052
A card used to identify lock assignments for inmates was properly admitted as a written report by a public employeeDefendant argued that the court erred in admitting exhibit 4, a card used by Las Colinas Men's Detention Facility to identify lock assignments for inmates. However, the deputy's testimony established the card was filled out as a routine procedure by jail personnel immediately after lock 536 was assigned to the incoming inmate. This testimony satisfied the requirements of Evidence Code section 1280, namely that the card was prepared by a public employee acting within the scope of his or her duty, at or near the time of the event recorded and the sources of information and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness.id: 13087
A product label may be introduced as an exception to the hearsay rule.Minor was convicted of possession of a substance containing toluene with the intent to inhale for the purpose of intoxication. He argued the list of ingredients on a product label is pure hearsay without exception and therefore inadmissible to prove the ingredients of a product. However, a label including (rather than excluding) a hazardous substance is inherently trustworthy, in that a manufacturer would have no interest in proclaiming that the product contained such a substance if in fact it did not. The holding was limited strictly to the presence of a hazardous substance, and not to its quantity or quality. The court properly found the label was generally used and relied on as accurate in the course of a business within the meaning of the compilation exception to the hearsay rule of Evidence Code section 1340.id: 13088
Court did not err in admitting autopsy report of unavailable pathologist under the business records exception.The pathologist who conducted the autopsy on the victim did not testify. Another pathologist testified regarding the autopsy report which was admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (Evidence Code section 1271). The court did not abuse its discretion in finding the autopsy report was trustworthy notwithstanding that the author of the report had left the coroner's office under unfavorable conditions. Moreover, the report was not inadmissible because it contained medical opinions since the conclusions, i.e., the victim died from gunshot wounds to the heart, were not disputed.id: 13089
Testing officer's sworn statement regarding the breath test was properly admitted as a public record and supported the DMV driver's license suspension.CHP officer determined that defendant had driven with a blood alcohol concentration of .13 percent. The officer submitted his sworn report to the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administrative proceeding regarding license suspension. The report stated the blood alcohol result was based upon the result generated by the breath testing instrument used by that officer to test defendant. Defendant objected to the sworn statement on hearsay grounds. However, the officer's sworn statement was a record of the event in question prepared by a public employee and was thus properly admitted at the DMV hearing under the official record hearsay exception pursuant to Evidence Code section 1280. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 664 the DMV can rely upon the rebuttable presumption that the officer regularly performed his duty.id: 10621
Criminalist's lab reports on drug analysis were admissible under the official records exceptions to the hearsay rule.A criminalist testified at defendant's trial that the substance admitted into evidence contained base cocaine. She did not personally analyze the substances and testified from the reports prepared by the criminalist who did the analysis. Defendant argued that the lab reports constituted inadmissible hearsay. However, the reports were properly admitted under the official records exception to the hearsay rule (Evidence Code section 1280). The witness identified the reports and detailed the tests and procedures used by all criminalists employed by the laboratory. She stated the procedures were standard in the industry and that the declarant's notes indicated she followed the procedures. Evidence supported the court's finding of trustworthiness.id: 9819
Pay records were business records where there was no showing they were prepared specifically for litigation.In a contempt action for failing to pay child support, appellant argued that pay records from the district attorney's office were not business records falling within the exception to the hearsay rule. However, although the district attorney's office is a prosecuting agency and pay records are valuable in contempt proceedings, there was no showing in the trial court that those records were self-serving or prepared specifically for litigation.id: 9820
Report prepared by police department fingerprint lab employee was admissible under the business records exception.A police officer and a member of the police department's fingerprint lab discovered and photographed two fingerprints. Neither person testified at trial nor did anyone else who observed their actions. The trial court properly permitted a fingerprint expert to testify regarding the content of the report prepared by the fingerprint lab employee because the report itself was properly admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (Evidence Code section 1271).id: 9821
The trial court did not err by allowing the prosecution to prove prior felony convictions with computerized rap sheets and portions of a probation report.Defendant argued the trial court erred by admitting, in violation of the hearsay rule, computerized rap sheets and portions of a probation report in order to prove he was the person who had suffered the alleged prior convictions and prior prison terms. However, the computerized rap sheets and statistical information in the probation report were properly admitted under the official records exception to the hearsay rule.id: 9359
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245