business records exception in Massachusetts

2026See Commonwealth v. Driscoll, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 474 , 479-480 (2017), quoting Beal Bank, SSB v. Eurich, 444 Mass. 813, 817 (2005) ("The flexible view of who may supply the foundation facts for purposes of the business records exception reflected in the Federal Rules of Evidence is consistent with the settled Massachusetts view that G.

2017A record falls within the scope of the business records exception to the hearsay rule, set forth in § 78, "if the judge finds that it was (1) made in good faith; (2) made in the regular course of business; (3) made before the action 23 As discussed infra, both Corbin and Fulgiam vigorously contested the assertion that the ten-print cards associated with them actually contained their fingerprints because the ten-print cards lacked certain identifying information, including both Corbin and Fulgiam's signatures. 33 began; and (4) the regular course of business to make the record at or about the t

2015In Wingate , the Court also reiterated that the business records exception statute makes it clear that the “personal knowledge by the entrant or maker [of the record] is a matter affecting the weight rather than the admissibility of the record.” Wingate, supra at 406 .

2011Initially, the trial judge excluded the passenger manifest and ticket inquiry, ruling that, even if the documents qualified for the business records exception to the rule against hearsay, the entries of the defendants’ names in those documents constituted second level or totem pole hearsay, see Wingate v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 385 Mass. 402, 406 (1982) (’Wingate), because the Commonwealth had not adduced evidence that United Airlines employees verified the identities of the persons purchasing the tickets or checking in for the flight. 16 As such, the judge concluded that the entry of the na

2011See Commonwealth v. Thissell, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 773, 777-778 (2009), S.C., 457 Mass. 191 (2010). 13 Zeininger argues, however, that the OAT certification records do not qualify for the business records exception to the hearsay proscription because they reflect the opinions and evaluative statements of a government official.

2010Commonwealth v. Thissell, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 773, 776-777 (2009). 10 As an alternative basis, the Appeals Court found that the GPS records were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, reasoning that they were in the control of the probation department and that they were made in good faith in the ordinary course of business for the purpose of supervising the probationer and monitoring his location by GPS monitoring.

2023Although it is best practice to verify that the person being fingerprinted is who he claims to be, "the presence or absence of independent verification bears on the weight of the record rather than its admissibility under the business records exception." Id. at 41-42 . 12 Here, a proper foundation for admission was laid.

2018See Commonwealth v. Fulgiam , 477 Mass. 20 , 41 (2017) (identifying information on fingerprint cards admissible under business records exception given "officers' duty to ensure that the ... cards are created with accurate information, and the arrestees' legal obligation to provide accurate information"); Beal Bank , 444 Mass. at 818 (bank manager's testimony was sufficient to support admission of servicing agent's business records because agent "had a business duty accurately to maintain such records for the bank"); Commonwealth v. Albino , 81 Mass. App. Ct. 736 , 738 (2012) (letters from Sex

2020See United States v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476 , 1494 n.13 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 863 (1990) (printouts admissible as business records even when prepared specifically for trial and not in regular course of business because data contained therein was entered into computer at time each call was placed and maintained in regular course of business); United States v. Sanders, 749 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1984) (printouts made in preparation of litigation admissible where printout did not sort, compile, or summarize data).

2020See United States v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476 , 1494 n.13 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 863 (1990) (printouts admissible as business records even when prepared specifically for trial and not in regular course of business because data contained therein was entered into computer at time each call was placed and maintained in regular course of business); United States v. Sanders, 749 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1984) (printouts made in preparation of litigation admissible where printout did not sort, compile, or summarize data).

2020See United States v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476 , 1494 n.13 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 863 (1990) (printouts admissible as business records even when prepared specifically for trial and not in regular course of business because data contained therein was entered into computer at time each call was placed and maintained in regular course of business); United States v. Sanders, 749 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1984) (printouts made in preparation of litigation admissible where printout did not sort, compile, or summarize data).

2020See United States v. Burgos- Montes, 786 F.3d 92, 120 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 599 (2015) ("[T]he physical manner in which the exhibit was generated simply reflects the fact that the business records were electronic, and hence their production required some choice and offered some flexibility in printing out only the 13The defendant also argues that the judge erred in failing to make the four preliminary factual determinations required to admit in evidence a document under the business records exception.

2020See United States v. Burgos- Montes, 786 F.3d 92, 120 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 599 (2015) ("[T]he physical manner in which the exhibit was generated simply reflects the fact that the business records were electronic, and hence their production required some choice and offered some flexibility in printing out only the 13The defendant also argues that the judge erred in failing to make the four preliminary factual determinations required to admit in evidence a document under the business records exception.

2020See United States v. Burgos- Montes, 786 F.3d 92, 120 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 599 (2015) ("[T]he physical manner in which the exhibit was generated simply reflects the fact that the business records were electronic, and hence their production required some choice and offered some flexibility in printing out only the 13The defendant also argues that the judge erred in failing to make the four preliminary factual determinations required to admit in evidence a document under the business records exception.

2020See United States v. Burgos- Montes, 786 F.3d 92, 120 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 599 (2015) ("[T]he physical manner in which the exhibit was generated simply reflects the fact that the business records were electronic, and hence their production required some choice and offered some flexibility in printing out only the 13The defendant also argues that the judge erred in failing to make the four preliminary factual determinations required to admit in evidence a document under the business records exception.

2017See United States v. Vigneau, 187 F.3d 70, 77 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1172 (2000) (admission of sender’s name, address, and telephone number reflected on Western Union “To Send Money” form for truth was error where Western Union did not have practice of verifying such information).

2017See United States v. Vigneau, 187 F.3d 70, 77 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1172 (2000) (admission of sender's name, address, and telephone number 37 reflected on Western Union "To Send Money" form for truth was error where Western Union did not have practice of verifying such information).

2017See United States v. Vigneau, 187 F.3d 70, 77 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1172 (2000) (admission of sender’s name, address, and telephone number reflected on Western Union “To Send Money” form for truth was error where Western Union did not have practice of verifying such information).

2017See United States v. Vigneau, 187 F.3d 70, 77 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1172 (2000) (admission of sender's name, address, and telephone number 37 reflected on Western Union "To Send Money" form for truth was error where Western Union did not have practice of verifying such information).

2011Such records are “presumed to be rehable and therefore admissible because entries in these records are routinely made by those charged with the responsibility of making accurate entries and are relied on in the course of doing business.” Wingate, supra. It is well established that the business records exception “should be interpreted liberally to permit the receipt of relevant evidence.” Wingate v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 11 Mass. App. Ct. 982, 983 (1981), S.C., 385 Mass. 402 (1982).

2011See Commonwealth v. Thissell, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 773, 777-778 (2009), S.C., 457 Mass. 191 (2010). 13 Zeininger argues, however, that the OAT certification records do not qualify for the business records exception to the hearsay proscription because they reflect the opinions and evaluative statements of a government official.

2010See Bouchie v. Murray, 376 Mass. 524, 527-528 (1978); Mass. G.

1998“Reliability is presumed because entries in these records are routinely made by those charged with the responsibility of making accurate entries and are relied on in the course of doing business.” Commonwealth v. LaPlante, 416 Mass. 433, 442 (1993).

1992Commonwealth v. Copeland, 375 Mass. 438, 442 (1978). [2] The fulfilment of the first and second parts of the test is not at issue. [3] The court has drawn an analogy to the business records exception to the hearsay rule.