business records exception in Georgia

2011See OCGA § 24-3-14 (b); see also Brown v. State, 274 Ga. 31, 33 (1), n. 2 ( 549 SE2d 107 ) (2001) (noting that certain routine information, such as the time, date and location of an arrest, may be properly admitted under the business records exception because unlike the narrative portion of a police report, which is inadmissible as a business record, such routine facts would not require the reporting officer to make a conclusion or express an opinion).

2011See OCGA § 24-3-14 (b); see also Brown v. State, 274 Ga. 31, 33 (1), n. 2 ( 549 SE2d 107 ) (2001) (noting that certain routine information, such as the time, date and location of an arrest, may be properly admitted under the business records exception because unlike the narrative portion of a police report, which is inadmissible as a business record, such routine facts would not require the reporting officer to make a conclusion or express an opinion).

1998See Hertz Corp. v. McCray, 198 Ga. App. 484, 485-486 (2) ( 402 SE2d 298 ) (1991) (“any person who is familiar with the method of keeping the records and can identify them may lay the necessary foundation” for admission under the business records exception).

1998See Hertz Corp. v. McCray, 198 Ga. App. 484, 485-486 (2) ( 402 SE2d 298 ) (1991) (“any person who is familiar with the method of keeping the records and can identify them may lay the necessary foundation” for admission under the business records exception).

2012Pretermitting whether this testimony was sufficient to lay a foundation generally for the admission of the three money orders under the business records exception, 4 it is well settled that “[t]hose portions of business records which contain conclusions, opinions, estimates and impressions of third parties who are not before the court are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370 (3) ( 434 SE2d 479 ) (1993).

2012Pretermitting whether this testimony was sufficient to lay a foundation generally for the admission of the three money orders under the business records exception, 4 it is well settled that “[t]hose portions of business records which contain conclusions, opinions, estimates and impressions of third parties who are not before the court are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370 (3) ( 434 SE2d 479 ) (1993).

2022“It is within the trial court’s discretion to determine whether a proper foundation was laid for application of the business records exception to a particular document and whether the circumstances of the document’s preparation indicate trustworthiness.” Roberts, 331 Ga. App. at 369 (2) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2018As with most evidentiary matters, "[i]t is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether a proper foundation was laid for application of the business records exception to a particular document and whether the circumstances of the document's preparation indicate trustworthiness." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Roberts v. Community & Southern Bank , 331 Ga. App. 364 , 369 (2), 771 S.E.2d 68 (2015).

2015See generally Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F2d 659, 665 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that “computer data compilations may be business records themselves, and should be treated as any other record of regularly conducted activity”); WGNX, Inc. v. Gorham, 185 Ga. App. 489, 490 (2) (a) ( 364 SE2d 621 ) (1988) (holding that “computer printout of a list of the dates on which the commercials [at issue] aired and the cost of each airing” was properly admitted as business record).

2015See generally Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F2d 659, 665 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that “computer data compilations may be business records themselves, and should be treated as any other record of regularly conducted activity”); WGNX, Inc. v. Gorham, 185 Ga. App. 489, 490 (2) (a) ( 364 SE2d 621 ) (1988) (holding that “computer printout of a list of the dates on which the commercials [at issue] aired and the cost of each airing” was properly admitted as business record).

2013See Robinson v. State, 312 Ga. App. 736, 740 (1) (a), n. 5 ( 719 SE2d 601 ) (2011) (holding that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of a property and evidence sheet under the business records exception); see also Loyal v. State, 300 Ga. App. 65, 66-67 ( 684 SE2d 124 ) (2009) (setting out requirements for admission of a warehouse security log under the business records exception).

2013See Robinson v. State, 312 Ga. App. 736, 740 (1) (a), n. 5 ( 719 SE2d 601 ) (2011) (holding that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of a property and evidence sheet under the business records exception); see also Loyal v. State, 300 Ga. App. 65, 66-67 ( 684 SE2d 124 ) (2009) (setting out requirements for admission of a warehouse security log under the business records exception).

1997However, the issues raised by defendant in this enumeration of error have been decided adversely to him by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Brown v. State, 268 Ga. 76 ( 485 SE2d 486 ), holding that a certificate issued pursuant to OCGA § 40-6-392 (f) may be admitted upon proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule without infringing upon a defendant’s rights under the confrontation clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions.

1997However, the issues raised by defendant in this enumeration of error have been decided adversely to him by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Brown v. State, 268 Ga. 76 ( 485 SE2d 486 ), holding that a certificate issued pursuant to OCGA § 40-6-392 (f) may be admitted upon proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule without infringing upon a defendant’s rights under the confrontation clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions.

2025See Tuggle v. Rose, 333 Ga. App. 431, 434 (2) ( 773 SE2d 485 ) (2015) (finding that, even 9 if investigator’s report were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, a summary of a student’s statement in the report still was hearsay and inadmissible); see generally In the Interest of A. G.

2025See Tuggle v. Rose, 333 Ga. App. 431, 434 (2) ( 773 SE2d 485 ) (2015) (finding that, even 9 if investigator’s report were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, a summary of a student’s statement in the report still was hearsay and inadmissible); see generally In the Interest of A. G.

2025And a successor bank can rely upon and integrate into its own business records its predecessor’s business records so long as a proper foundation is laid under OCGA § 24-8-803 (6).”); see also Ciras, LLC v. 12 Hydrajet Technology, LLC, 333 Ga. App. 498, 501 ( 773 SE2d 800 ) (2015) (trial court abused its discretion by finding that the business records exception did not apply to the routine bank records authenticated by affidavit as having been transferred to Wells Fargo, and integrated into its own business records, as part of its acquisition of Wachovia); Lockwood, supra, 330 Ga. App. at 516 n

2025And a successor bank can rely upon and integrate into its own business records its predecessor’s business records so long as a proper foundation is laid under OCGA § 24-8-803 (6).”); see also Ciras, LLC v. 12 Hydrajet Technology, LLC, 333 Ga. App. 498, 501 ( 773 SE2d 800 ) (2015) (trial court abused its discretion by finding that the business records exception did not apply to the routine bank records authenticated by affidavit as having been transferred to Wells Fargo, and integrated into its own business records, as part of its acquisition of Wachovia); Lockwood, supra, 330 Ga. App. at 516 n

2024To introduce a writing under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (OCGA § 24-8-803 (6)), “a witness must lay a foundation indicating that he or she is aware of the method of keeping the documents.” (Footnote omitted.) Santana v. 10 State, 283 Ga. App. 696, 698 (1) ( 642 SE2d 390 ) (2007) (citing former OCGA § 24-3- 14).

2024To introduce a writing under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (OCGA § 24-8-803 (6)), “a witness must lay a foundation indicating that he or she is aware of the method of keeping the documents.” (Footnote omitted.) Santana v. 10 State, 283 Ga. App. 696, 698 (1) ( 642 SE2d 390 ) (2007) (citing former OCGA § 24-3- 14).

2016See Hurst v. State, 285 Ga. 294, 297 (3) ( 676 SE2d 165 ) (2009).

2016See Hurst v. State, 285 Ga. 294, 297 (3) ( 676 SE2d 165 ) (2009).

2013See Ross v. State, 298 Ga. App. 525, 527 ( 680 SE2d 435 ) (2009) (“It is well established that a factual document may be admitted under the business records exception when an officer or employee of a business that received, relied upon, and retained the document in the regular course of its business testifies to that effect, despite the lack of testimony from a witness associated with the business that originally created the document.”) (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).

2013See Ross v. State, 298 Ga. App. 525, 527 ( 680 SE2d 435 ) (2009) (“It is well established that a factual document may be admitted under the business records exception when an officer or employee of a business that received, relied upon, and retained the document in the regular course of its business testifies to that effect, despite the lack of testimony from a witness associated with the business that originally created the document.”) (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).

2013See Robinson v. State, 312 Ga. App. 736, 740 (1) (a), n. 5 ( 719 SE2d 601 ) (2011) (holding that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of a property and evidence sheet under the business records exception); see also Loyal v. State, 300 Ga. App. 65, 66-67 ( 684 SE2d 124 ) (2009) (setting out requirements for admission of a warehouse security log under the business records exception).

2013See Robinson v. State, 312 Ga. App. 736, 740 (1) (a), n. 5 ( 719 SE2d 601 ) (2011) (holding that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of a property and evidence sheet under the business records exception); see also Loyal v. State, 300 Ga. App. 65, 66-67 ( 684 SE2d 124 ) (2009) (setting out requirements for admission of a warehouse security log under the business records exception).

2006As the telephone messages here “noted the contents of a conversation, not an act, transaction, occurrence, or event, the business records exception to the hearsay rule was inapplicable. [Cit.]” Mitchell v. State, 254 Ga. 353, 355 (5) (a) ( 329 SE2d 481 ) (1985).

2006As the telephone messages here “noted the contents of a conversation, not an act, transaction, occurrence, or event, the business records exception to the hearsay rule was inapplicable. [Cit.]” Mitchell v. State, 254 Ga. 353, 355 (5) (a) ( 329 SE2d 481 ) (1985).

2003See Wheat Enterprises, 231 Ga. App. at 857-858 (2).

2003See Wheat Enterprises, 231 Ga.App. at 857-858 (2), 501 S.E.2d 30 .

2003See Carter v. Tokai Financial Svcs., 231 Ga. App. 755, 759-760 ( 500 SE2d 638 ) (1998).

2003See Carter v. Tokai Financial Svcs., 231 Ga. App. 755, 759-760 ( 500 SE2d 638 ) (1998).

2024See Miller v. State, 266 Ga. 850, 854 (3) ( 472 SE2d 74 ) (1996) (although certificate might have been a record made in the regular course of business as a record of an event, it was not admissible as a business record without a foundation being laid through the testimony of a witness who is familiar with the method of keeping records and who can show that the entry was made in the regular course of business).

2024See Miller v. State, 266 Ga. 850, 854 (3) ( 472 SE2d 74 ) (1996) (although certificate might have been a record made in the regular course of business as a record of an event, it was not admissible as a business record without a foundation being laid through the testimony of a witness who is familiar with the method of keeping records and who can show that the entry was made in the regular course of business).

2010And although diagnostic opinions of persons not before the court may not be admissible under the business records exception, see, e.g., Baker v. State, 251 Ga. 464, 464 (2), 306 S.E.2d 917 (1983), the records in this case were introduced only for the limited purposes of showing whether Shirley had been admitted to the hospital.

2010And although diagnostic opinions of persons not before the court may not be admissible under the business records exception, see, e.g., Baker v. State, 251 Ga. 464, 464 (2), 306 S.E.2d 917 (1983), the records in this case were introduced only for the limited purposes of showing whether Shirley had been admitted to the hospital.

2009A testifying witness need not be the custodian of records to provide the foundation for admission under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, McBride v. State, 213 Ga. App. 857 (6) ( 446 SE2d 193 ) (1994), and any lack of independent recollection on the officer’s part regarding the creation of the record would go only to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility.

2009A testifying witness need not be the custodian of records to provide the foundation for admission under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, McBride v. State, 213 Ga. App. 857 (6) ( 446 SE2d 193 ) (1994), and any lack of independent recollection on the officer’s part regarding the creation of the record would go only to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility.

1999Payne v. State, 232 Ga. App. 591, 594 (2) ( 502 SE2d 526 ) (1998); but see State v. Haddock, 235 Ga. App. 726 ( 510 SE2d 561 ) (1998) (finding that OCGA § 40-6-392 (f) renders proof under the business records exception unnecessary).

1999Payne v. State, 232 Ga. App. 591, 594 (2) ( 502 SE2d 526 ) (1998); but see State v. Haddock, 235 Ga. App. 726 ( 510 SE2d 561 ) (1998) (finding that OCGA § 40-6-392 (f) renders proof under the business records exception unnecessary).

2025I., 246 Ga. App. 85, 88 (2) (c) ( 539 SE2d 584 ) (2000) (finding that “the portion of the report relied on by DFCS contains hearsay statements purportedly made by [juvenile’s] mother to the guardian[, and] . . . any reliance on hearsay in the report would have been error”). 3.

2025I., 246 Ga. App. 85, 88 (2) (c) ( 539 SE2d 584 ) (2000) (finding that “the portion of the report relied on by DFCS contains hearsay statements purportedly made by [juvenile’s] mother to the guardian[, and] . . . any reliance on hearsay in the report would have been error”). 3.

2023See Bright v. State, 292 Ga. 273, 274 (736 SE2d 380) (2013). (a) King contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing properly to obtain certification of medical records from the time of King’s incarceration, preventing their admission under the so-called business records exception to the rule against hearsay.

2023See Bright v. State, 292 Ga. 273, 274 (736 SE2d 380) (2013). (a) King contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing properly to obtain certification of medical records from the time of King’s incarceration, preventing their admission under the so-called business records exception to the rule against hearsay.

2021See OCGA § 24-8-803 (6) (setting forth business records exception); Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, 335 Ga. App. 526, 526-527 ( 782 SE2d 312 ) (2016) (business record falls within exception if it was made at or near the time of the described act, by a 6 person with personal knowledge and a business duty to report, is admitted through a qualified witness’s testimony, was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, was made as a part of that regular business activity, and there is no indication of lack of trustworthiness in connection with the source of the information or the me

2021See OCGA § 24-8-803 (6) (setting forth business records exception); Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, 335 Ga. App. 526, 526-527 ( 782 SE2d 312 ) (2016) (business record falls within exception if it was made at or near the time of the described act, by a 6 person with personal knowledge and a business duty to report, is admitted through a qualified witness’s testimony, was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, was made as a part of that regular business activity, and there is no indication of lack of trustworthiness in connection with the source of the information or the me

2021See Johnson v. State, 289 Ga. 22, 26 (4) (709 SE2d 217) (2011) (“The Confrontation Clause generally prohibits the admission of an out-of- court testimonial statement made by a declarant who is not available for cross-examination by the accused.” (Citations omitted.)).

2021See Johnson v. State, 289 Ga. 22, 26 (4) (709 SE2d 217) (2011) (“The Confrontation Clause generally prohibits the admission of an out-of- court testimonial statement made by a declarant who is not available for cross-examination by the accused.” (Citations omitted.)).

2018See Phillips v. State , 275 Ga. 595 , 598, 571 S.E.2d 361 (2002).

2018See Phillips v. State , 275 Ga. 595 , 598, 571 S.E.2d 361 (2002).