public records exception in Indiana

2024Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8); see id. [12] The public records exception to the hearsay rule is grounded in the “assumption that public officials perform their duties properly without motive or interest other than to submit accurate and fair reports.” Fowler, 929 N.E.2d at 878 (quoting 13 Robert Lowell Miller, Jr., Indiana Practice: Indiana Evidence § 803.108 (3d ed.2007)).

2024Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8); see id. [12] The public records exception to the hearsay rule is grounded in the “assumption that public officials perform their duties properly without motive or interest other than to submit accurate and fair reports.” Fowler, 929 N.E.2d at 878 (quoting 13 Robert Lowell Miller, Jr., Indiana Practice: Indiana Evidence § 803.108 (3d ed.2007)).

2009See, e.g., Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1047, 1055 (Ind.1997) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Thompson v. State, 270 Ind. 442 , 386 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1979) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule although the doctor who prepared the report did not sponsor the report at trial and reasoning that the business records exception "does not mean that a sponsor of an exhibit must have personally made it, filed it, or have had first-hand knowledge of the tran

2009See, e.g., Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1047, 1055 (Ind.1997) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Thompson v. State, 270 Ind. 442 , 386 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1979) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule although the doctor who prepared the report did not sponsor the report at trial and reasoning that the business records exception "does not mean that a sponsor of an exhibit must have personally made it, filed it, or have had first-hand knowledge of the tran

2003Implicit in that conclusion is "an indication that such reports are not considered inherently reliable." Baxter v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1037, 1043 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002), trans. denied.

2003Implicit in that conclusion is "an indication that such reports are not considered inherently reliable." Baxter v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1037, 1043 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied.

1999It appears he is arguing that driving records contain factual findings, but we have already concluded that driving records fit within the public records exception to the hearsay rule in Coates, 650 N.E.2d at 63 .

1998In Coates v. State, 650 N.E.2d 58, 63 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied, this court held that documents properly certified by the BMV are admissible under Rule 803(8) as a compilation of the BMVs ‘“regularly conducted and regularly recorded activities.’” In Coates , as here, the challenged evidence included copies of the defendant’s driving record, notice of suspension letters, traffic citations and abstracts of court records.

2018See, e.g., Allen, 994 N.E.2d at 320 (explaining that a State’s exhibit that contained “non-adversarial information”—including the defendant’s age, address, height and weight, the jail where he was held, and the charge upon which he was arrested—was “more appropriately characterized as a booking report” and was not subject to the investigative police report exclusion); Fowler, 929 N.E.2d at 879 (holding that a booking card, which contained biographical information and “was obtained and recorded in the course of a ministerial, nonevaluative booking process[,]” was admissible under the public rec

2018The public records hearsay exception “is based on the assumption that public officials perform their duties properly without motive or interest other than to submit accurate and fair reports.” Allen v. State, 994 N.E.2d 316, 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Fowler v. State, 929 N.E.2d 875, 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied).

2010See, e.g., United States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 70-72 (1st Cir.2010); see also United States v. Koontz, 148 F.8d 408, 411-13 (8th Cir. 1998).

2010See id. "[The reason for this exclusion is that observations by police officers at the scene of the crime or the apprehension of the defendant are not as reliable as observations by public officials in other cases because of the adversarial nature of the confrontation between the police and the defendant in criminal cases." S.Rep.

2010A document need not be open and available to the public in order to qualify for admission under the public records exception. 2 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick On Evidence § 295 (6th ed. 2006); see also Jones v. State, 267 Ind. 205, 208 , 369 N.E.2d 418, 420 (1977), overruled on other grounds by Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 582, 539 , 382 N.E.2d 893, 897 (1978).

2010A document need not be open and available to the public in order to qualify for admission under the public records exception. 2 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick On Evidence § 295 (6th ed. 2006); see also Jones v. State, 267 Ind. 205, 208 , 369 N.E.2d 418, 420 (1977), overruled on other grounds by Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 582, 539 , 382 N.E.2d 893, 897 (1978).

2010A document need not be open and available to the public in order to qualify for admission under the public records exception. 2 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick On Evidence § 295 (6th ed. 2006); see also Jones v. State, 267 Ind. 205, 208 , 369 N.E.2d 418, 420 (1977), overruled on other grounds by Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 582, 539 , 382 N.E.2d 893, 897 (1978).

2009See, e.g., Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1047, 1055 (Ind.1997) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Thompson v. State, 270 Ind. 442 , 386 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1979) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule although the doctor who prepared the report did not sponsor the report at trial and reasoning that the business records exception "does not mean that a sponsor of an exhibit must have personally made it, filed it, or have had first-hand knowledge of the tran

2009See, e.g., Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1047, 1055 (Ind.1997) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Thompson v. State, 270 Ind. 442 , 386 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1979) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule although the doctor who prepared the report did not sponsor the report at trial and reasoning that the business records exception "does not mean that a sponsor of an exhibit must have personally made it, filed it, or have had first-hand knowledge of the tran

2009See, e.g., Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1047, 1055 (Ind.1997) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Thompson v. State, 270 Ind. 442 , 386 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1979) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule although the doctor who prepared the report did not sponsor the report at trial and reasoning that the business records exception "does not mean that a sponsor of an exhibit must have personally made it, filed it, or have had first-hand knowledge of the tran

2009See, e.g., Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1047, 1055 (Ind.1997) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Thompson v. State, 270 Ind. 442 , 386 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1979) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule although the doctor who prepared the report did not sponsor the report at trial and reasoning that the business records exception "does not mean that a sponsor of an exhibit must have personally made it, filed it, or have had first-hand knowledge of the tran

2005See id.

2002Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8); cf. Hernandez v. State, 716 N.E.2d 601, 602-03 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (noting that substantial indicia of reliability of hearsay evidence in criminal proceeding “may be inferred where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule”; “Such exceptions to the hearsay rule exist because the manner in which certain out-of-court statements are made virtually guarantee their reliability.”).

2000See id. 1 The trial court should have sustained Tardy’s objection.

2000Sparkman v. State, 722 N.E.2d 1259, 1263 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

2000In U.S. v. Loyola-Dominguez, 125 F.3d 1315, 1318 (9th Cir.1997), the court held that documents that fall under the public records exception “are presumed trustworthy, placing the burden of establishing untrustworthiness on the opponent of the evidence.” However, “if the defendant can show that there is a reason to doubt the trustworthiness of the report, then the rule protects him.” Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d at 1054 .