business records exception in Indiana

2020“In essence, the basis for the business records exception is that reliability is assured because the maker of the record relies on the record in the ordinary course of business activities.” In re Termination of Parent–Child Relationship of E.T., 808 N.E.2d 639, 643 (Ind. 2004). [8] On appeal, Mother does not claim that the entirety of her medical and mental health records constituted inadmissible hearsay.

2020In re E.T., 808 N.E.2d 639, 642-43 (Ind. 2003) (citing Stahl v. State, 686 N.E.2d 89, 92 (Ind. 1997)). [15] Recently, a panel of this Court held, in In re L.S., that a mother’s Forensic Fluids lab reports did not fall under the business-records exception and therefore excluded them. 125 N.E.3d 628, 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. not sought.

2020In re E.T., 808 N.E.2d 639, 642-43 (Ind. 2003) (citing Stahl v. State, 686 N.E.2d 89, 92 (Ind. 1997)). [15] Recently, a panel of this Court held, in In re L.S., that a mother’s Forensic Fluids lab reports did not fall under the business-records exception and therefore excluded them. 125 N.E.3d 628, 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. not sought.

2020In re L.S., 125 N.E.3d 628, 634-35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. not sought; accord In re A.B., 130 N.E.3d 122, 128-29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (reversing CHINS adjudication and citing L.S. for the proposition that “exhibits containing drug test results do not fall under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay”), trans. not sought.

2020In re E.T., 808 N.E.2d 639, 642-43 (Ind. 2003) (citing Stahl v. State, 686 N.E.2d 89, 92 (Ind. 1997)). [15] Recently, a panel of this Court held, in In re L.S., that a mother’s Forensic Fluids lab reports did not fall under the business-records exception and therefore excluded them. 125 N.E.3d 628, 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. not sought.

2019A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if: (A) the record was made at or near the time by--or from information transmitted by--someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(9) or (10) or with a statute permitting certification; and (E) n

2020Our supreme court has stated, “Although Rule 803(6) accommodates the inclusion of ‘opinions’ in business records our courts have long recognized, at least in the context of medical or hospital records, that the expertise of the opinion giver must be established.” Id. at 644 (citing Fendley v. Ford, 458 N.E.2d 1167 , 1171 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (“Expressions of opinion within medical or hospital records historically have not been admissible under the business records exception because their accuracy cannot be evaluated without the safeguard of cross-examination of the person offering the opin

2016Our Supreme Court has stated, “Although Rule 803(6) accommodates the inclusion of ‘opinions’ in business records our courts have long recognized, at Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-JC-11 | August 16, 2016 Page 19 of 28 least in the context of medical or hospital records, that the expertise of the opinion giver must be established.” In re E.T., 808 N.E.2d at 644 (citing Fendley v. Ford, 458 N.E.2d 1167 , 1171 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (“Expressions of opinion within medical or hospital records historically have not been admissible under the business records exception

2019“The reliability of business records Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-204 | December 10, 2019 Page 6 of 10 stems from the fact that the organization depends on them to operate, from the sense that they are subject to review, audit, or internal checks, from the precision engendered by the repetition, and from the fact that the person furnishing the information has a duty to do it correctly.” Id. “‘The fact that the business record is prepared by a party independent of the business does not negate these factors.’” Embrey v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1260, 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013

2014Grisby acknowledges that NPLEx reports were deemed admissible under the business records exception in Embrey v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1260, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

2020See also Schloot, 697 N.E.2d at 1277 (noting that “expressions of opinion within medical or hospital records historically have not been admissible under the business records exception because their accuracy cannot be evaluated without the safeguard of cross-examination of the person offering the opinion.”). [14] Because Dr. Jay Summers did not testify at trial, we conclude that the trial court was well within its discretion to redact his opinions regarding Pardue’s health in Pardue’s VA medical records.

2004See Fendley v. Ford, 458 N.E.2d 1167 , 1171 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) ("Expressions of opinion within medical or hospital records historically have not been admissible under the business records exception because their accuracy cannot be evaluated without the safeguard of cross-examination of the person offering the opinion."); accord Brooks v. Friedman, 769 N.E.2d 696, 701 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied; Schaefer v. State, 750 N.E.2d 787, 793 (Ind.Ct.App.2001); Schloot v. Guinevere Real Estate Corp., 697 N.E.2d 1273, 1277 (Ind.Ct.App.1998).

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

2020In re L.S., 125 N.E.3d 628, 634-35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. not sought; accord In re A.B., 130 N.E.3d 122, 128-29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (reversing CHINS adjudication and citing L.S. for the proposition that “exhibits containing drug test results do not fall under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay”), trans. not sought.

2020In re L.S., 125 N.E.3d 628, 634-35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. not sought; accord In re A.B., 130 N.E.3d 122, 128-29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (reversing CHINS adjudication and citing L.S. for the proposition that “exhibits containing drug test results do not fall under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay”), trans. not sought.

1997See id.

1997See id.

2004With few exceptions, Evidence Rule 808(6) is generally consistent with longstanding Indiana precedent on the admissibility of business records. 2 Like the common law "shop book" rule, the business records exception to the hearsay rule is "based on the fact that the cireumstances of preparation assure the accuracy and reliability of the entries." Wells, 261 N.E.2d at 870 .

1990She also argues that police reports have been held to be generally inadmissible because statements taken by the reporting officer are not given in the usual course of the eyewitness' business and thus do not fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule, citing Wells v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 608 , 261 N.E.2d 865 .

1983The business records exception to the hearsay rule was summarized in American United Life Insurance Company v. Peffley (1973) 158 Ind.App. 29 , 301 N.E.2d 651 .

1983The business records exception to the hearsay rule was summarized in American United Life Insurance Company v. Peffley (1973) 158 Ind.App. 29 , 301 N.E.2d 651 .

2011Importantly, “ ‘[expressions of opinion within medical or hospital records historically have not been admissible under the business records exception because their accuracy cannot be evaluated without the safeguard of cross-examination of the person offering the opinion.’ ” Schaefer, 750 N.E.2d at 794 , quoted in Dyer, 870 N.E.2d at 579 .

2007Further, “ ‘expressions of opinion within medical or hospital records historically have not been admissible under the business records exception because their accuracy cannot be evaluated without the safeguard of cross-examination of the person offering the opinion.’ ” Id. (quoting Schaefer, 750 N.E.2d at 794 ).

2004Smith v. State, 455 N.E.2d 606, 607 (Ind.1983); Wells v. State, 254 Ind. 608 , 261 N.E.2d 865, 870 (1970).

1992For example, our courts have included as a foundational element in some decisions the common law requirement that "the witness who had knowledge of the facts must be unavailable.” Smith v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 606, 607 , citing Wells v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 608 , 261 N.E.2d 865 ; See also Bryce v. State (1989), Ind.App., 545 N.E.2d 1094 , trans. denied (supervisor of department of toxicology who reviewed and signed off on test results, but who did not conduct the tests and was not the . records custodian, was not the proper party to identify records at trial where the state did not

2019“It is not enough to qualify under the business records exception to show that the records are made regularly; rather, the court must also look to ‘the character of the records and their earmarks of reliability acquired from their source and origin and the nature of their compilation.’” E.T., 639 N.E.2d at 643 (quoting Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 114 (1943) (emphasis added)). [49] In E.T., our supreme court found that reports describing home visits and supervised visitations produced by a non-profit agency were not business Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-350 | September 24,

2004The "regular course" of business "must find its meaning in the inherent nature of the business in question and in the methods systematically employed for the conduct of the business as a business." Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 115 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 (19483).

2018Breining v. Harkness , 872 N.E.2d 155 , 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied (2008). [9] NCSLT admits that the Jefferis affidavit and supporting documents are hearsay. 2 However, NCSLT argues that the material offered is admissible because it falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2013See Breining v. Harkness, 872 N.E.2d 155, 158 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (holding inadmissible hearsay contained in an affidavit may not be considered in ruling on a summary judgment motion), trans. denied. *1143 And, contrary to Midland’s contention on appeal, the business records exception, Evidence Rule 803(6), does not apply here because Degel’s affidavit does not purport to authenticate any business records, which is the sole function of that exception.

2017Id.

2014This rule provides for an exception to the hearsay rule for: [a] record of an act [or] event … if: (A) the record was made at or near the time by – or from information transmitted by – someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business …; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(9) or (10) or with a statute permitting certification; and (E) neither the source of infor

1995Id.; see also Perry v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 913, 918 (unavailability not listed as a foundational requirement); Knuckles, supra, 549 N.E.2d at 87 (unavailability not listed as a foundational requirement).

1991Id.; Perry, supra. The records track the cocaine sample from the time Neal brought them to the Post.

1991McBrady v. State (1984), Ind., 459 N.E.2d 719, 723 .

1987See McBrady v. State (1984), Ind., 459 N.E.2d 719 ; Ind.Rules T.Pro. 44.

2020The Hussains maintain that Blough, who testified on Salin’s behalf, lacked the knowledge to lay an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. [35] Under the business records exception, “a person who has a familiarity with the records may provide a proper business records exception foundation even if he or she is not the entrant or his or her official supervisor.” Payne v. State, 658 N.E.2d 635, 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied.

2020Id.

2020Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012).

2020R. 103(a)(1); Ward v. State, 50 N.E.3d Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2876 | May 22, 2020 Page 5 of 8 752, 756 (Ind. 2016) (cautioning appellate courts not to unrealistically “insist on detailed doctrinal arguments during the exigencies of trial,” and observing that an objection need simply be sufficient “to let the trial judge make an informed decision and prevent the objecting party from switching theories on appeal”); K.T. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (“In re O.G.”), 65 N.E.3d 1080, 1086-76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (finding a general hearsay objection sufficient to pr