business record exception in Alabama

2016Lewis, 24 So.3d at 509 .

2007In Mayo v. City of Rainbow City, 642 So.2d 524 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), the defendant, Mayo, was convicted of cruelty to animals and criminal possession of a noxious substance.

2001“We recognize that admission of evidence under exceptions to the hearsay rule necessarily does not implicate the confrontation clause (Higgs v. State, 256 Ga. 606, 608-609 , 351 S.E.2d 448 ), but testimonial affidavits such as these do not satisfy the criteria for admission in evidence.

2001“We recognize that admission of evidence under exceptions to the hearsay rule necessarily does not implicate the confrontation clause (Higgs v. State, 256 Ga. 606, 608-609 , 351 S.E.2d 448 ), but testimonial affidavits such as these do not satisfy the criteria for admission in evidence.

2001Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370 , 434 S.E.2d 479 ; Luke v. Spicer, 194 Ga.App. 183, 184 , 390 S.E.2d 267 ; Finch v. Caldwell, supra. Moreover, the business record exception is an exception to the hearsay rule (Oldham, supra at 269 , 422 S.E.2d 38 ), and not a general exception to the confrontation clause.

2001Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370 , 434 S.E.2d 479 ; Luke v. Spicer, 194 Ga.App. 183, 184 , 390 S.E.2d 267 ; Finch v. Caldwell, supra. Moreover, the business record exception is an exception to the hearsay rule (Oldham, supra at 269 , 422 S.E.2d 38 ), and not a general exception to the confrontation clause.

2001Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370 , 434 S.E.2d 479 ; Luke v. Spicer, 194 Ga.App. 183, 184 , 390 S.E.2d 267 ; Finch v. Caldwell, supra. Moreover, the business record exception is an exception to the hearsay rule (Oldham, supra at 269 , 422 S.E.2d 38 ), and not a general exception to the confrontation clause.

2001Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370 , 434 S.E.2d 479 ; Luke v. Spicer, 194 Ga.App. 183, 184 , 390 S.E.2d 267 ; Finch v. Caldwell, supra. Moreover, the business record exception is an exception to the hearsay rule (Oldham, supra at 269 , 422 S.E.2d 38 ), and not a general exception to the confrontation clause.

2001Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370 , 434 S.E.2d 479 ; Luke v. Spicer, 194 Ga.App. 183, 184 , 390 S.E.2d 267 ; Finch v. Caldwell, supra. Moreover, the business record exception is an exception to the hearsay rule (Oldham, supra at 269 , 422 S.E.2d 38 ), and not a general exception to the confrontation clause.

1996NOTES [1] The parties agree that Land was arrested at this point. [2] We further note that the lack of a contemporaneous objection by experienced defense counsel leads this Court to believe that the prosecutor's comment was not stated with an inflection or tone that would have naturally led a listener to construe it as a reference to Land's failure to testify. [3] In Grantham , the Court of Criminal Appeals stated: "Sections 12-21-35 and 36-18-2 [Ala. Code 1975] essentially establish a public record exception to the hearsay rule that is similar in nature to the business record exception found

1994Compare Ex parte McCall , 594 So.2d 628 , 631 (Ala. 1991) (requiring literal compliance with procedural rule when court has been made aware of basis of defense request "would be to elevate form over substance"); Ex parte Webb , 586 So.2d 954 , 956-57 (Ala. 1991) (when trial court understands the basis for defense counsel's objection, a reviewing court should not be "too strict in its application of the waiver principle"); see also Pearson v. State , 601 So.2d 1119 , 1125 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (applying Ex parte McCall and Ex parte Webb ).

1988Yelton v. State , 294 Ala. 340 , 317 So.2d 331 (1974); Holm v. State , 416 So.2d 782 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).' Bell v. State , 466 So.2d 167 , 174 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985)." We find that even if the court erred in admitting the report into evidence, the error was rendered harmless by the admission, without objection, of the other evidence, direct or circumstantial, tending to establish the wrench, the glass bottle, and the commode lid as weapons used in the assault.

1988Yelton v. State , 294 Ala. 340 , 317 So.2d 331 (1974); Holm v. State , 416 So.2d 782 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).' Bell v. State , 466 So.2d 167 , 174 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985)." We find that even if the court erred in admitting the report into evidence, the error was rendered harmless by the admission, without objection, of the other evidence, direct or circumstantial, tending to establish the wrench, the glass bottle, and the commode lid as weapons used in the assault.

1988Yelton v. State , 294 Ala. 340 , 317 So.2d 331 (1974); Holm v. State , 416 So.2d 782 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).' Bell v. State , 466 So.2d 167 , 174 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985)." We find that even if the court erred in admitting the report into evidence, the error was rendered harmless by the admission, without objection, of the other evidence, direct or circumstantial, tending to establish the wrench, the glass bottle, and the commode lid as weapons used in the assault.

1988Yelton v. State , 294 Ala. 340 , 317 So.2d 331 (1974); Holm v. State , 416 So.2d 782 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).' Bell v. State , 466 So.2d 167 , 174 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985)." We find that even if the court erred in admitting the report into evidence, the error was rendered harmless by the admission, without objection, of the other evidence, direct or circumstantial, tending to establish the wrench, the glass bottle, and the commode lid as weapons used in the assault.

1988In Self , 512 So.2d at 816 -17 , we found the following: "[E]ven if the report was not properly admitted under the business record exception (the State [argues that] it was proper under this exception), it was 'rendered prejudicially innocuous' by the other testimony to the same effect. 'The rule is that testimony apparently illegal upon admission may be rendered prejudicially innocuous by subsequent or prior legal testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred.

1986(Code 1940, T. 7, § 415.)" (Emphasis added.) In Hall v. Dexter Gas Company , 277 Ala. 360 , 170 So.2d 796 (1965), the court allowed "a so-called tachograph disc record or chart" into evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, even though the evidence did not "clearly disclose what a tachograph is or exactly how it works." 277 Ala. at 365 , 170 So.2d at 801 .

1986(Code 1940, T. 7, § 415.)" (Emphasis added.) In Hall v. Dexter Gas Company , 277 Ala. 360 , 170 So.2d 796 (1965), the court allowed "a so-called tachograph disc record or chart" into evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, even though the evidence did not "clearly disclose what a tachograph is or exactly how it works." 277 Ala. at 365 , 170 So.2d at 801 .