business record exception in Pennsylvania

2023Notably, “even if a record falls within the business record exception, its admission may still violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of United States Constitution.” Commonwealth v. Carter, 932 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa. 2007) (cleaned up).

2023In Melendez- Diaz v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court scrutinized the admission of a lab report identifying a white powdery substance as cocaine under the business records this Court explicitly reached its conclusion “regardless of whether [a lab report fell] within” the business record exception. 932 A.2d at 1269 . 12 Christian Chessman, Note, A “Source” of Error: Computer Code, Criminal Defendants, and the Constitution, 105 CALIF.

2023Appellant contends that if a medical record is admitted under the business record exception, it is “competent to show only the fact of hospitalization, the treatment prescribed, and the complaints and symptoms stated by the plaintiff.” Appellant’s Brief at 11, citing Williams v. McClain, 520 A.2d 1374, 1376 (Pa. 1987).

2005As stated by the Supreme Court in Williams v. McClain, 513 Pa. 300, 305 , 520 A.2d 1374, 1376 (1987): “[t]he basic justification for the business record exception to the hearsay rule is that the purpose of keeping business records builds in a reliability which obviates the need for cross-examination.” Because important business decisions routinely depend upon the accuracy of regularly kept records, they are admissible and constitute prima facie proof of their contents, whether offered by their creator or an antagonist.

2025Instead, “[a]s long as the authenticating witness can provide sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the records to justify a presumption of trustworthiness of the business records of a company, a sufficient basis is provided to offset the hearsay character of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Nabried, 327 A.3d 315 , 322 (Pa. Super. 2024) (quoting Commonwealth v. McEnany, 732 A.2d 1263, 1272 (Pa. Super. 1999)).

2024Commonwealth v. -5- J-S30012-24 McEnany, 732 A.2d 1263, 1272 (Pa. Super. 1999).

2019See Maisano, 204 A.3d at 523 ; Brown, 202 A.3d at 708 ; see also Keystone Dedicated Logistics, 77 A.3d at 12 (vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial on damages where, among other things, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting invoices that were not properly authenticated at trial).

2019See Maisano, 204 A.3d at 523 ; Brown, 202 A.3d at 708 ; see also Keystone Dedicated Logistics, 77 A.3d at 12 (vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial on damages where, among other things, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting invoices that were not properly authenticated at trial).

2019See Maisano, 204 A.3d at 523 ; Brown, 202 A.3d at 708 ; see also Keystone Dedicated Logistics, 77 A.3d at 12 (vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial on damages where, among other things, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting invoices that were not properly authenticated at trial).

2019See Maisano, 204 A.3d at 523 ; Brown, 202 A.3d at 708 ; see also Keystone Dedicated Logistics, 77 A.3d at 12 (vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial on damages where, among other things, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting invoices that were not properly authenticated at trial).

2013See, e.g., Birt v. Firstenergy Corp., 891 A.2d 1281 (Pa.Super.2006).

2011See, e.g., Birt v. Firstenergy Corp., 891 A.2d 1281 (Pa.Super.2006).

2026See N.T., 3/13/2025, at 9-10; compare, e.g., Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Wicker, 206 A.3d 474, 482-83 (Pa. 2019).

2025In Paey Associates v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 78 A.3d 1187, 1195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), the Court reviewed First Ward Republican Club and found another example of how a qualifying witness can provide sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the records to justify the presumption of trustworthiness for the business records exception: “Based upon the 2 - MSW above rule, if the testifying officer responded to the events described in the police report, prepared or reviewed the reports, and the reports were maintained by the department in the regular course of b

2025In Paey Associates v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 78 A.3d 1187, 1195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), the Court reviewed First Ward Republican Club and found another example of how a qualifying witness can provide sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the records to justify the presumption of trustworthiness for the business records exception: “Based upon the 2 - MSW above rule, if the testifying officer responded to the events described in the police report, prepared or reviewed the reports, and the reports were maintained by the department in the regular course of b

2024Without authentication by a representative from Royal Bank or a certification indicating that the spreadsheet was a record kept in the ordinary course of business by Royal Bank, the spreadsheet does not qualify as a business record exception and is inadmissible hearsay”). - 11 - J-S42024-23 declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Commonwealth v. Watley, 153 A.3d 1034, 1040 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citing Pa.R.E. 801(c)).

2023See Appellant’s Brief to Superior Court at 8 (reasserting his position that the GPS records presented in this case were created in anticipation of litigation and, thus, could not be considered business records for the purpose of Rule 803(6)). [J-51-2022] - 8 addressing Appellant’s claim concerning the admissibility of the GPS records, the intermediate court noted that, while “Pennsylvania courts have not ruled on whether GPS records are hearsay[,] . . . some state and federal courts have ruled that computer- generated GPS data cannot be deemed hearsay because it is an assertion made by a machi

2023See Appellant’s Brief to Superior Court at 8 (reasserting his position that the GPS records presented in this case were created in anticipation of litigation and, thus, could not be considered business records for the purpose of Rule 803(6)). [J-51-2022] - 8 addressing Appellant’s claim concerning the admissibility of the GPS records, the intermediate court noted that, while “Pennsylvania courts have not ruled on whether GPS records are hearsay[,] . . . some state and federal courts have ruled that computer- generated GPS data cannot be deemed hearsay because it is an assertion made by a machi

2023See Le, 208 A.3d at 970-71 (assuming that cell phone records were hearsay when considering whether the Commonwealth properly introduced them at trial under the business records exception but never reaching the merits of the claim); Carter, 932 A.2d 19None of the parties dispute that the GPS data was offered for the truth of the matter asserted – i.e., to establish Clary’s location. [J-51-2022] - 17 at 1262 (reviewing a state police laboratory report, created by a forensic scientist, under the business record exception to the hearsay rule).

2023See Appellant’s Brief to Superior Court at 8 (reasserting his position that the GPS records presented in this case were created in anticipation of litigation and, thus, could not be considered business records for the purpose of Rule 803(6)). [J-51-2022] - 8 addressing Appellant’s claim concerning the admissibility of the GPS records, the intermediate court noted that, while “Pennsylvania courts have not ruled on whether GPS records are hearsay[,] . . . some state and federal courts have ruled that computer- generated GPS data cannot be deemed hearsay because it is an assertion made by a machi

2023See Appellant’s Brief to Superior Court at 8 (reasserting his position that the GPS records presented in this case were created in anticipation of litigation and, thus, could not be considered business records for the purpose of Rule 803(6)). [J-51-2022] - 8 addressing Appellant’s claim concerning the admissibility of the GPS records, the intermediate court noted that, while “Pennsylvania courts have not ruled on whether GPS records are hearsay[,] . . . some state and federal courts have ruled that computer- generated GPS data cannot be deemed hearsay because it is an assertion made by a machi

2022See id. at 8a; see also Virgo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (County of Lehigh-Cedarbrook), 890 A.2d 13, 20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (“Under th[e business record] exception, it is not essential to produce either the person who made the entries or the custodian of the record at the time the entries were made or that the witness qualifying the business records even has personal knowledge of the facts reported in the business record.”) (citation omitted); id. at 21 (“Because the [documents] were admitted without objection, they fall within the business record exception and constitute substantial

2022See id. at 8a; see also Virgo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (County of Lehigh-Cedarbrook), 890 A.2d 13, 20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (“Under th[e business record] exception, it is not essential to produce either the person who made the entries or the custodian of the record at the time the entries were made or that the witness qualifying the business records even has personal knowledge of the facts reported in the business record.”) (citation omitted); id. at 21 (“Because the [documents] were admitted without objection, they fall within the business record exception and constitute substantial

2022See generally Commonwealth v. Buford, 101 A.3d 1182 (Pa.Super. 2014) (holding that where the individual who performed autopsy is unavailable to testify, a qualified testifying expert is one whose testimony was based upon his own conclusions after his own independent review of the file). - 28 - J-S19031-22 In her final issue, Mother contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence DHS Exhibit #7, which was the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s Office Final Diagnoses Autopsy Report (“autopsy report”) under the business record exception to the hearsay rule.

2017Id., 118 A.3d at 4001 , quoting Boyle v. Steiman, 429 Pa. Super. 1 , 631 A.2d 1025, 1032-33 (1993) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied, 538 Pa. 663 , 649 A.2d 666 (1994).

2017Id., 118 A.3d at 4001 , quoting Boyle v. Steiman, 429 Pa. Super. 1 , 631 A.2d 1025, 1032-33 (1993) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied, 538 Pa. 663 , 649 A.2d 666 (1994).

2017The certificate may be made by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties with respect to the government unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of that office . . . . 42 Pa. C.S. § 6103(a). 9 conducted activity in a police laboratory are admissible under the business record exception); Hill v. Dep’t of Corr., 64 A.3d 1159, 1170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (holding that invoices reflecting the cost of standard materials purchased for Pennsylvania’s prison population were admissible as business records); Commonwealth v. Schoff, 911 A.2d 147, 157 (Pa. Super.

2017The certificate may be made by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties with respect to the government unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of that office . . . . 42 Pa. C.S. § 6103(a). 9 conducted activity in a police laboratory are admissible under the business record exception); Hill v. Dep’t of Corr., 64 A.3d 1159, 1170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (holding that invoices reflecting the cost of standard materials purchased for Pennsylvania’s prison population were admissible as business records); Commonwealth v. Schoff, 911 A.2d 147, 157 (Pa. Super.

2016Duquesne Light Company v. Woodland Hills School District, 700 A.2d 1038, 1049 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

2007Commonwealth v. Carter, 861 A.2d 957, 962-63 (Pa.Super.2004).

2007Id. 1 In focusing on the fact the report was prepared in anticipation of litigation, the court stated although there was nothing indicating the forensic scientists in this case conducted themselves unprofessionally, there was the possibility of inherent bias by the lab because it is part of the state police.