business record exception in Indiana

1983The State argued the report was admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, which the Peffley case defined in the following manner: "A synthesis of the Indiana cases treating what modern authorities call the 'business record' exception to the hearsay rule is that documentary evidence is admissible if identified by its entrant or one under whose supervision it is kept and shown to be an original or first permanent entry, made in the routine course of business, at or near the time of the recorded transaction, by one having both a duty to so record and personal knowledge o

1983The State argued the report was admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, which the Peffley case defined in the following manner: "A synthesis of the Indiana cases treating what modern authorities call the 'business record' exception to the hearsay rule is that documentary evidence is admissible if identified by its entrant or one under whose supervision it is kept and shown to be an original or first permanent entry, made in the routine course of business, at or near the time of the recorded transaction, by one having both a duty to so record and personal knowledge o

1990Although computer-generated evidence constitutes hearsay, it is admissible under the business record exception “ ‘if identified by its entrant or one under whose supervision it is kept and shown to be an original or first permanent entry, made in the routine course of business, at or near the time of the recorded transaction, by one having both a duty to so record and personal knowledge of the transaction represented by the entry. [Citations omitted.]’ ” Kinkade v. State (1989), Ind.App., 537 N.E.2d 541, 542 .

1989Consequently, the typed notation does not qualify as a business record.” [Citations omitted.] Id. at 542-543 .

2019Rather, the affiant’s knowledge of the facts asserted in her affidavit “is limited to what she has gleaned from her review of unspecified business records,” and her affidavit is, therefore, “based entirely upon hearsay, in violation of Trial Rule 56(E).” Seth, 997 N.E.2d at 1142 ; see also Holmes, 94 N.E.3d 722, 725 (“As an exception to the hearsay rule, the business record exception must be strictly construed.”).

2013A. Historical Background In In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of E.T., 808 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. 2004), the Indiana Supreme Court provided a historical background of the hearsay rule and the business record exception to the hearsay rule, stating the following: ■ Every second-year law student and perhaps first-year law student as well, depending on the law school curriculum, can recite the general definition of hearsay: “an out of court assertion offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Also well known is the corollary that absent an exception to the rule, hearsay is

2012In Houston, we held that a school attendance record was admissible under the business record exception because the attendance officer “was legally required to prepare them and to file them as part of the proceedings.” Id. at 658 .

2012In support of its conclusion, the Houston court relied on In re the adoption of M.A.S., 815 N.E.2d 216 , 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) where we found that a home study report was admissible as a business record over an hearsay objection in an adoption proceeding because the statute specifically provided that the report “shall be filed” and “become part of the proceedings.” Here, Voss testified that even though her job title was that of social worker, her duties included tracking the students’ attendance at school and she testified to the record keeping process at the school.

2008In Jenkins v. State, 627 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.1993), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 812 , 115 S.Ct. 64 , 130 L.Ed.2d 21 (1994), our supreme court was asked to decide whether a technician’s laboratory notes concerning DNA testing fall within the business record exception to the hearsay rule where the trial court admitted the documents through the technician’s supervisor’s testimony.

2008In Jenkins v. State, 627 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.1993), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 812 , 115 S.Ct. 64 , 130 L.Ed.2d 21 (1994), our supreme court was asked to decide whether a technician’s laboratory notes concerning DNA testing fall within the business record exception to the hearsay rule where the trial court admitted the documents through the technician’s supervisor’s testimony.

2008In Jenkins v. State, 627 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.1993), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 812 , 115 S.Ct. 64 , 130 L.Ed.2d 21 (1994), our supreme court was asked to decide whether a technician’s laboratory notes concerning DNA testing fall within the business record exception to the hearsay rule where the trial court admitted the documents through the technician’s supervisor’s testimony.

2008Cf. Pendergrass v. State, 889 N.E.2d 861 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (holding Confrontation Clause inapplicable to use of Certificate of Analysis pertaining to DNA test where Certificate used to provide context for expert’s testimony, not to prove element of charged crime), trans. pending.

2008In Jenkins v. State, 627 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.1993), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 812 , 115 S.Ct. 64 , 130 L.Ed.2d 21 (1994), our supreme court was asked to decide whether a technician’s laboratory notes concerning DNA testing fall within the business record exception to the hearsay rule where the trial court admitted the documents through the technician’s supervisor’s testimony.

2008In Jenkins v. State, 627 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.1993), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 513 *866 U.S. 812, 115 S.Ct. 64 , 130 L.Ed.2d 21 (1994), our supreme court was asked to decide whether a technician's laboratory notes concerning DNA testing fall within the business record exception to the hearsay rule where the trial court admitted the documents through the technician's supervisor's testimony.

2007Id. at 388 .

2007Id. at 388 .

1996Hinkle v. Garrett-Keyser-Butler School District (1991), Ind.App., 567 N.E.2d 1173, 1178 , tramsfer denied.

1994Waddell v. C.I.R. (1988) 9th Cir., 841 F.2d 264 ; Pieters v. B-Right Trucking, Inc. (1987) N.D.Ind., 669 F.Supp. 1463 .

1994Waddell v. C.I.R. (1988) 9th Cir., 841 F.2d 264 ; Pieters v. B-Right Trucking, Inc. (1987) N.D.Ind., 669 F.Supp. 1463 .

1994Id.

1992See e.g., Perry v. State (1989), Ind., 541 N.E.2d 913, 918 ; Smith v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 346, 353 .

1989Wilson v. Jenga Corp. (1986), Ind.App., 490 N.E.2d 375, 376 ; Baker v. Wagers (1984), Ind.App., 472 N.E.2d 218, 221 , quoting, American United Life Ins.

1987In re Mental Commitment of M.P. (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 216, 220 .