Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 46
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-108 (2020)

Photographically reproduced records admissible in court

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. Any record or set of records or photographically reproduced copies of such records which would be admissible under Rule 803(6) or (7) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence shall be admissible in evidence in any court in this state upon the affidavit of the person who would otherwise provide the prerequisites of Rule 803(6) or (7) that such records attached to such affidavit were in fact so kept as required by Rule 803(6) or (7), provided, further, that such record or records, along with such affidavit, are filed with the clerk of the court for inclusion with the papers in the cause in which the record or records are sought to be used as evidence at least fourteen (14) days prior to the day upon which the trial of said cause commences, and provided the other parties to said cause are given prompt notice by the party filing same of the filing of such record or records and affidavit, which notice shall identify the name and employer, if any, of the person making the affidavit, and such records shall be made available to the counsel for other parties to the action or litigation for inspection and copying.
    2. The expense for copying shall be borne by the party, parties, or persons who desire copies and not by the party or parties who file the records and serve notice of said filing in compliance with this rule.
    3. Notice shall be deemed to have been promptly given if it is served in the manner contemplated by Rule 27(a)(2) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure fourteen (14) days prior to commencement of the trial in said cause.
  2. A form for the affidavit of such person as shall make such affidavit as is permitted in subsection (a) of this section shall be sufficient if it follows this form, though this form shall not be exclusive, and an affidavit which substantially complies with the provisions of this rule shall suffice, to wit:

No. John Doe (Name of Plaintiff) v. John Roe (Name of Defendant) IN THE COURT OF COUNTY, Arkansas AFFIDAVIT Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared , who, being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows: My name is , I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated: I am the custodian of the records of . Attached hereto are pages of records from . These said pages of records are kept by in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business of for an employee or representative of , with knowledge of the act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis, recorded to make the record or to transmit information thereof to be included in such record; and the record was made at or near the time or reasonably soon thereafter. The records attached hereto are the original or exact duplicates of the original. Affiant SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on the day of , 19 . My commission expires: Notary Public, State of Arkansas Notary's printed name

Click to view form.

History. Acts 1995, No. 1136, § 1.

Case Notes

Admissibility.

Finding in favor of the beneficiaries and against the intestate heirs in a will-contest action was proper where the beneficiaries satisfied the requirements of Ark. R. Evid. 803(6) and proved that the bank's records were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule and, even though the officer was not the custodian of the records, that did not bar the admission; further, the records were adequately authenticated under Ark. R. Evid. 901 because the officer repeatedly testified that the copies were true and accurate copies of the records that they depicted. Metzgar v. Rodgers, 83 Ark. App. 354, 128 S.W.3d 5 (2003).

In an action to collect unpaid credit card debt, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding business records which reflected a credit card debt owed by the cardholder because the documents were supported by an affidavit that complied with subsection (b) of this section. The cardholder never claimed a lack of notice and made no objection to the admission of the business records. Ozark Capital Corp. v. Pullen, 2012 Ark. App. 652 (2012).

Orthodontic and dental estimates were not admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 803(6) where plaintiff failed to cite this section or explain how his proffered certificate of acknowledgement met the statutory requirements. Dale v. White, 2018 Ark. App. 172, 545 S.W.3d 812 (2018).

Notice.

It is proper to exclude either the date of filing or the first day of trial when computing the 14-day statutory period pursuant to this section, but it is improper to exclude both dates from the computation. Phelan v. Discover Bank, 361 Ark. 138, 205 S.W.3d 145 (2005).

Prejudice or Confusion.

The fact that medical records fell within § 16-46-108 and Evid. Rule 803(6) did not equate to automatic admissibility, and the trial court properly excluded such evidence to prevent possible prejudice or confusion. Lovell v. Beavers, 336 Ark. 551, 987 S.W.2d 660 (1999).

Cited: Clater v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 92 (2020).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case: Phelan v. Discover Bank, 205 S.W.3d 145 (Ark. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Phelan v. Discover Bank, 205 S.W.3d 145 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 6× “Phelan argues (1) the trial court should have excluded both the date of filing and the first day of trial when computing the 14-day statutory period pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-108 , and (2) the court should have granted Ms.”
Dale v. White, 545 S.W.3d 812 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “3d 869 (declining to address whether Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-46-108 permitted admission of business records when neither party raised the statute as a basis for admission before the circuit court or on appeal); Nucor Steel-Ark.”
Jones v. John B. Dozier Land Trust, 2017 Ark. App. 23, 511 S.W.3d 869. · cites it 2× “Although Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-46-108 (Repl. 1999) permits certain business records to be admitted based on affidavit if certain conditions are met, neither party raised this statute as a basis for the admission before the trial court nor suggests that this section…”
Metzgar v. Rodgers, 128 S.W.3d 5 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-108 (Repl. 1999). A trial court has wide discretion to determine whether a business record lacks trustworthiness, and we will not' reverse absent an abuse of that discretion.”
Lovell v. Beavers, 987 S.W.2d 660 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 3× “” His second basis for admissibility was the Hospital Records Act of 1995, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-108 (Supp. 1997), which states that medical records kept as required by Rule 803(6) “shall be admissible in evidence,” if accompanied by an affidavit of the custodian of…”
Jack Bennett & Cindy Bennett v. Wiley B. Ballow, 2022 Ark. App. 311, 653 S.W.3d 357. · cites it 4× “1999) (authenticity);see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-108 (Repl. 1999) (business records), and the circuit court did not specify either of these as the basis for its ruling.”
Parnell R. May v. State of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 216, 655 S.W.3d 74. · cites it 4× “To the extent that May was attempting to introduce the records without the testimony of a custodian pursuant to section 16-46-108, he failed to meet the requirements of that statute.”
Parnell R. May v. State of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 216, 655 S.W.3d 74. · cites it 4× “To the extent that May was attempting to introduce the records without the testimony of a custodian pursuant to section 16-46-108, he failed to meet the requirements of that statute.”
Evelyn Chism v. James R. Chism, 2021 Ark. App. 373. · cites it 4× “2d 109 3 Although Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-46-108 (Repl. 1999) permits certain business records to be admitted on the basis of an affidavit if certain conditions are met, Evelyn did not raise this statute as a basis for the admission before the circuit court, nor does…”
Discover Bank v. POMMELL, 286 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 16× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-108 (a)(l) (Repl. 1999).”
Patrick Clater v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. App. 92. · cites it 2× “The State responded that the Facebook posts are admissible under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-46-108 (Repl. 1999) with a certificate of authentication.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-108(a): 1 case
Dale v. White, 545 S.W.3d 812 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). “3d 869 (declining to address whether Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-46-108 permitted admission of business records when neither party raised the statute as a basis for admission before the circuit court or on appeal); Nucor Steel-Ark.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-108(a)(1): 2 cases
Parnell R. May v. State of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 216, 655 S.W.3d 74. “To the extent that May was attempting to introduce the records without the testimony of a custodian pursuant to section 16-46-108, he failed to meet the requirements of that statute.”
Parnell R. May v. State of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 216, 655 S.W.3d 74. “To the extent that May was attempting to introduce the records without the testimony of a custodian pursuant to section 16-46-108, he failed to meet the requirements of that statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.