business records exception in South Carolina

2017Control, 350 S.C. at 249-50 , 565 S.E.2d at 297 (requiring business records be "prepared near the time of the event recorded" in order to be admissible under the business records exception).

2017Control, 350 S.C. at 249-50 , 565 S.E.2d at 297 (requiring business records be "prepared by someone with or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge . . . in the regular course of business" in order to be admissible under the business records exception).

2015Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1310 (D.S.C. 1994) (holding exhibits can be admitted as business records of an entity, even when that entity was not the maker of those records, so long as the other requirements of Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met and the circumstances indicate the records are trustworthy), aff'd, 87 F.3d 1308 (4th Cir. 1996); id. at 1311 ("Rule 803(6) does not require the testifying witness to have personally participated in the creation of the document or to know who actually recorded the information."); id. ("Documents may properly be admitted und

2007Haynes & Co., Inc. , 893 F.Supp. 1304, 1311 (D.S.C. 1994) (citing United States v. Keplinger , 776 F.2d 678, 693 (7th Cir. 1985)). “Obviously, such a requirement would eviscerate the business records exception, since no document could be admitted unless the preparer (and possibly others involved in the information-gathering process) personally testified as to its creation.” Keplinger , 776 F.2d at 694 .

2013A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.... ”); State v. Rich, 293 S

2013A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.... ”); State v. Rich, 293 S

2015Deep Keel relies on Twelfth RMA Partners, L.P. v. National Safe Corp., 335 S.C. 635 , 518 S.E.2d 44 (Ct.App.1999), in which this court held a witness is qualified to testify about a business record, despite the fact he or she did not personally participate in the creation of the record and was not the custodian “at or near the time” the record was made. 335 S.C. at 642 , 518 S.E.2d at 48 .

2015Deep Keel relies on Twelfth RMA Partners, L.P. v. National Safe Corp., 335 S.C. 635 , 518 S.E.2d 44 (Ct.App.1999), in which this court held a witness is qualified to testify about a business record, despite the fact he or she did not personally participate in the creation of the record and was not the custodian “at or near the time” the record was made. 335 S.C. at 642 , 518 S.E.2d at 48 .

2024See State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law.").

2024See State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law.").

2023See Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 54 (Ct. App. 2006) ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").

2023See Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 54 (Ct. App. 2006) ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").

2023See Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 54 (Ct. App. 2006) ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").

2023See Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 54 (Ct. App. 2006) ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").

2018See United States v. Ary, 518 F.3d 775, 787 (10th Cir. 2008) ("The essential component of the business records exception is that each actor in the chain of information is under a business duty or compulsion to provide accurate information.

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW "In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only." State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120 , 123, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008).

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW "In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only." State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120 , 123, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008).

2017Control, 350 S.C. 243 , 250, 565 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2002) ("Medical records are admitted routinely as business records."); State v. Key, 277 S.C. 214, 216 , 284 S.E.2d 781, 783 (1981) (finding the business record in that case represented a "purely factual observation, i.e. the physical path of the bullet"); id. ("It is no differen[t], for example, from a report describing the location of damage to a motor vehicle."); id. (holding the record was properly admitted into evidence because it did not include any subjective opinion or judgment). 2.

2017Control, 350 S.C. 243 , 250, 565 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2002) ("Medical records are admitted routinely as business records."); State v. Key, 277 S.C. 214, 216 , 284 S.E.2d 781, 783 (1981) (finding the business record in that case represented a "purely factual observation, i.e. the physical path of the bullet"); id. ("It is no differen[t], for example, from a report describing the location of damage to a motor vehicle."); id. (holding the record was properly admitted into evidence because it did not include any subjective opinion or judgment). 2.

2016As to whether the trial court erred in admitting GPS records from the electronic monitoring device: Rule 801(c), SCRE ("'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."); Rule 803(6), SCRE (providing under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay, evidence is admissible if it is "[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a perso

2016As to whether the trial court erred in admitting GPS records from the electronic monitoring device: Rule 801(c), SCRE ("'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."); Rule 803(6), SCRE (providing under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay, evidence is admissible if it is "[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a perso

2015See Rule 803(6), SCRE; High v. High, 389 S.C. 226, 239 , 697 S.E.2d 690, 696-97 (Ct.App.2010).

2015See Rule 803(6), SCRE; High v. High, 389 S.C. 226, 239 , 697 S.E.2d 690, 696-97 (Ct.App.2010).

2015Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1310 (D.S.C. 1994) (holding exhibits can be admitted as business records of an entity, even when that entity was not the maker of those records, so long as the other requirements of Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met and the circumstances indicate the records are trustworthy), aff'd, 87 F.3d 1308 (4th Cir. 1996); id. at 1311 ("Rule 803(6) does not require the testifying witness to have personally participated in the creation of the document or to know who actually recorded the information."); id. ("Documents may properly be admitted und

2015Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1310 (D.S.C. 1994) (holding exhibits can be admitted as business records of an entity, even when that entity was not the maker of those records, so long as the other requirements of Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met and the circumstances indicate the records are trustworthy), aff'd, 87 F.3d 1308 (4th Cir. 1996); id. at 1311 ("Rule 803(6) does not require the testifying witness to have personally participated in the creation of the document or to know who actually recorded the information."); id. ("Documents may properly be admitted und

2015See Thompson v. State, 705 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998) (“While the business-records exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of ![a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation,’ it does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.” (citation omitted)); State v. Watkins, 148 Idaho 418 , 224 P.3d 485, 492 (2009) (finding written notes relied on by the witness “were not offered into evidence” and “[i]n the absence of any document ... there was simply no ‘business record’ that might fall within t

2015See Thompson v. State, 705 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998) (“While the business-records exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of ![a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation,’ it does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.” (citation omitted)); State v. Watkins, 148 Idaho 418 , 224 P.3d 485, 492 (2009) (finding written notes relied on by the witness “were not offered into evidence” and “[i]n the absence of any document ... there was simply no ‘business record’ that might fall within t

2015Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony."); Rule 803(6), SCRE (setting forth the business records exception to the hearsay rule); State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 330-31 , 652 S.E.2d 409, 423 (Ct. App. 2007) (noting the business records exception in Rule 803(6) is "[p]atterned after the South Carolina Act and the Federal Rules"), overruled on other grounds by State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438 , 710 S.E.2d 55 (2011); Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W.

2015Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony."); Rule 803(6), SCRE (setting forth the business records exception to the hearsay rule); State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 330-31 , 652 S.E.2d 409, 423 (Ct. App. 2007) (noting the business records exception in Rule 803(6) is "[p]atterned after the South Carolina Act and the Federal Rules"), overruled on other grounds by State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438 , 710 S.E.2d 55 (2011); Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W.

2015See Thompson v. State, 705 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998) (“While the business-records exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of ![a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation,’ it does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.” (citation omitted)); State v. Watkins, 148 Idaho 418 , 224 P.3d 485, 492 (2009) (finding written notes relied on by the witness “were not offered into evidence” and “[i]n the absence of any document ... there was simply no ‘business record’ that might fall within t

2015See Thompson v. State, 705 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998) (“While the business-records exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of ![a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation,’ it does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.” (citation omitted)); State v. Watkins, 148 Idaho 418 , 224 P.3d 485, 492 (2009) (finding written notes relied on by the witness “were not offered into evidence” and “[i]n the absence of any document ... there was simply no ‘business record’ that might fall within t

2015See Thompson v. State, 705 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998) (“While the business-records exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of ![a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation,’ it does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.” (citation omitted)); State v. Watkins, 148 Idaho 418 , 224 P.3d 485, 492 (2009) (finding written notes relied on by the witness “were not offered into evidence” and “[i]n the absence of any document ... there was simply no ‘business record’ that might fall within t

2015Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1310 (D.S.C. 1994) (holding exhibits can be admitted as business records of an entity, even when that entity was not the maker of those records, so long as the other requirements of Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met and the circumstances indicate the records are trustworthy), aff'd, 87 F.3d 1308 (4th Cir. 1996); id. at 1311 ("Rule 803(6) does not require the testifying witness to have personally participated in the creation of the document or to know who actually recorded the information."); id. ("Documents may properly be admitted und

2015Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1310 (D.S.C. 1994) (holding exhibits can be admitted as business records of an entity, even when that entity was not the maker of those records, so long as the other requirements of Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met and the circumstances indicate the records are trustworthy), aff'd, 87 F.3d 1308 (4th Cir. 1996); id. at 1311 ("Rule 803(6) does not require the testifying witness to have personally participated in the creation of the document or to know who actually recorded the information."); id. ("Documents may properly be admitted und

2015Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1310 (D.S.C. 1994) (holding exhibits can be admitted as business records of an entity, even when that entity was not the maker of those records, so long as the other requirements of Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met and the circumstances indicate the records are trustworthy), aff'd, 87 F.3d 1308 (4th Cir. 1996); id. at 1311 ("Rule 803(6) does not require the testifying witness to have personally participated in the creation of the document or to know who actually recorded the information."); id. ("Documents may properly be admitted und

2015Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1310 (D.S.C. 1994) (holding exhibits can be admitted as business records of an entity, even when that entity was not the maker of those records, so long as the other requirements of Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met and the circumstances indicate the records are trustworthy), aff'd, 87 F.3d 1308 (4th Cir. 1996); id. at 1311 ("Rule 803(6) does not require the testifying witness to have personally participated in the creation of the document or to know who actually recorded the information."); id. ("Documents may properly be admitted und

2007Generally, an objection must “be sufficiently specific to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error so that it can be reasonably understood by the trial judge.” State v. Holliday , 333 S.C. 332, 338 , 509 S.E.2d 280, 283 (Ct. App. 1998) (quoting McKissick v. J.F.

2007Generally, an objection must “be sufficiently specific to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error so that it can be reasonably understood by the trial judge.” State v. Holliday , 333 S.C. 332, 338 , 509 S.E.2d 280, 283 (Ct. App. 1998) (quoting McKissick v. J.F.

2007Haynes & Co., Inc. , 893 F.Supp. 1304, 1311 (D.S.C. 1994) (citing United States v. Keplinger , 776 F.2d 678, 693 (7th Cir. 1985)). “Obviously, such a requirement would eviscerate the business records exception, since no document could be admitted unless the preparer (and possibly others involved in the information-gathering process) personally testified as to its creation.” Keplinger , 776 F.2d at 694 .

2007Haynes & Co., Inc. , 893 F.Supp. 1304, 1311 (D.S.C. 1994) (citing United States v. Keplinger , 776 F.2d 678, 693 (7th Cir. 1985)). “Obviously, such a requirement would eviscerate the business records exception, since no document could be admitted unless the preparer (and possibly others involved in the information-gathering process) personally testified as to its creation.” Keplinger , 776 F.2d at 694 .

2007Id . see also United States v. Hathaway , 798 F.2d 902, 906 (6th Cir.1986).