business record exception in Virginia

2009Because the trustworthiness of documents admitted under the business record exception arises from their nature as records kept in the normal course of business, “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Patterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979), these documents must be “‘verified by testimony of the [entrant of the record] or of a superior who testifies to the regular course of business,’” Sparks, 24 Va. App. at 282 , 482 S.E.2d at 71 (alteration in original) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Phelps, 239 Va. 272, 276 , 389 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1990)).

2009Because the trustworthiness of documents admitted under the business record exception arises from their nature as records kept in the normal course of business, “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Patterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979), these documents must be “‘verified by testimony of the [entrant of the record] or of a superior who testifies to the regular course of business,’” Sparks, 24 Va. App. at 282 , 482 S.E.2d at 71 (alteration in original) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Phelps, 239 Va. 272, 276 , 389 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1990)).

2009Because the trustworthiness of documents admitted under the business record exception arises from their nature as records kept in the normal course of business, “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Patterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979), these documents must be “‘verified by testimony of the [entrant of the record] or of a superior who testifies to the regular course of business,’” Sparks, 24 Va. App. at 282 , 482 S.E.2d at 71 (alteration in original) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Phelps, 239 Va. 272, 276 , 389 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1990)).

2009Because the trustworthiness of documents admitted under the business record exception arises from their nature as records kept in the normal course of business, “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Patterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979), these documents must be “‘verified by testimony of the [entrant of the record] or of a superior who testifies to the regular course of business,’” Sparks, 24 Va. App. at 282 , 482 S.E.2d at 71 (alteration in original) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Phelps, 239 Va. 272, 276 , 389 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1990)).

2017Business records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule “provided there is a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness.” McDowell v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 431, 434 , 641 S.E.2d 507, 509 (2007).

2017Business records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule “provided there is a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness.” McDowell v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 431, 434 , 641 S.E.2d 507, 509 (2007).

2009Because the trustworthiness of documents admitted under the business record exception arises from their nature as records kept in the normal course of business, “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Patterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979), these documents must be “‘verified by testimony of the [entrant of the record] or of a superior who testifies to the regular course of business,’” Sparks, 24 Va. App. at 282 , 482 S.E.2d at 71 (alteration in original) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Phelps, 239 Va. 272, 276 , 389 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1990)).

2009Because the trustworthiness of documents admitted under the business record exception arises from their nature as records kept in the normal course of business, “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Patterson, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 792 , 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979), these documents must be “‘verified by testimony of the [entrant of the record] or of a superior who testifies to the regular course of business,’” Sparks, 24 Va. App. at 282 , 482 S.E.2d at 71 (alteration in original) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Phelps, 239 Va. 272, 276 , 389 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1990)).

2017Robinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 3, 6 , 516 S.E.2d 475, 476 (1999). -3- The Commonwealth asserts that Exhibits Five and Six, although hearsay, were admissible under the business record exception to the rule.

2017Robinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 3, 6 , 516 S.E.2d 475, 476 (1999). -3- The Commonwealth asserts that Exhibits Five and Six, although hearsay, were admissible under the business record exception to the rule.

2023As the circuit court was not plainly wrong in ruling that West’s statements constituted party admissions, we need not address whether the statements also satisfied a different hearsay exception.1 See Davis, 73 Va. App. at 509 (“[I]t is a time-honored principle of evidence law that, in general, if evidence is admissible for any purpose, it is admissible.” (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 171, 178 (1997))). 1 As we affirm the trial court’s judgment admitting the progress note and West’s statement therein under the business record exception and the party admission doctrine, we do not a

2022Appellant further argues that its admission was not harmless because “there was no other evidence about what, specifically, was stolen” and both the Commonwealth and appellant’s counsel referred to the receipt in the jury’s presence. -5- “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.’” Atkins v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 1, 7 (2017) (quoting Va. R.

2017The business record exception permits introduction “into evidence of verified regular [business] entries without requiring proof from the original observers or record keepers.” Neeley v. Johnson, 215 Va. 565, 571 , 211 S.E.2d 100, 106 (1975).

2017The business record exception permits introduction “into evidence of verified regular [business] entries without requiring proof from the original observers or record keepers.” Neeley v. Johnson, 215 Va. 565, 571 , 211 S.E.2d 100, 106 (1975).

2015“The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 , 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998).

2015“The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 , 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998).

2003A. "Hearsay evidence is defined as a spoken or written out-of-court declaration or nonverbal assertion offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." Arnold v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 275, 279-80 , 356 S.E.2d 847, 850 (1987).

2003A. "Hearsay evidence is defined as a spoken or written out-of-court declaration or nonverbal assertion offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." Arnold v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 275, 279-80 , 356 S.E.2d 847, 850 (1987).

2002See generally Lavinder v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 1003 , 407 S.E.2d 910 (1991) (en banc) (discussing the harmless error test in the context of a trial court’s error in allowing the jury to consider inadmissible evidence).

2002See generally Lavinder v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 1003 , 407 S.E.2d 910 (1991) (en banc) (discussing the harmless error test in the context of a trial court’s error in allowing the jury to consider inadmissible evidence).