business records exception in Oklahoma

2014See, e.g. , State v. Pugh , 225 P.3d 892, 831-32 (Wash. 2009) ("Nontestimonial hearsay, on the other hand, is admissible under the Sixth Amendment subject only to the rules of evidence."). 17 Although some courts have determined these types of certificates are nontestimonial evidence and admissible in criminal cases under the Confrontation Clause, the certificates are not admissible in this case under the public records exception to the hearsay doctrine because they were not prepared by a public official and are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay doctrine becaus

2014See, e.g. , State v. Pugh , 225 P.3d 892, 831-32 (Wash. 2009) ("Nontestimonial hearsay, on the other hand, is admissible under the Sixth Amendment subject only to the rules of evidence."). 17 Although some courts have determined these types of certificates are nontestimonial evidence and admissible in criminal cases under the Confrontation Clause, the certificates are not admissible in this case under the public records exception to the hearsay doctrine because they were not prepared by a public official and are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay doctrine becaus

1977However, this Court need not *524 reach the issue of compliance with 12 O.S. 1971 , § 502, for as this Court stated in Brinlee v. State, Okl.Cr., 543 P.2d 744 (1975), the common law concept of the business records exception to the hearsay rule is also applicable in Oklahoma.

1977See also, Brinlee v. State, Okl.Cr., 543 P.2d 744 (1975), which held that even if prison records such as the reception sheet in the instant case could not be admitted under 12 O.S.1971, § 502, they could in appropriate circumstances be admitted under the common law concept of the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2014Seq eg., State v. Pugh, 167 Wash.2d 825, 831-32 , 225 P.3d 892 (2009) ("Nontestimonial hearsay, on the other hand, is admissible under the Sixth Amendment subject only to the rules of evidence."). 17 Although some courts have determined these types of certificates are nontestimonial evidence and admissible in criminal cases under the Confrontation Clause, the certificates are not admissible in this case under the public records exception to the hearsay doctrine because they were not prepared by a public official and are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay doctrin

1998Reid v. State, 478 P.2d 988, 999 (Okl.Cr.1970); 12 O.S.1991 § 2803(6); Middaugh v. State, 767 P.2d 432, 435-436 (Okl.Cr.1988). ¶ 38 Second, Appellant claims the DNA evidence was inadmissible because the PCR method of DNA testing is a novel scientific method that has not yet been approved for use in Oklahoma courts.

1998Reid v. State, 478 P.2d 988, 999 (Okl.Cr.1970); 12 O.S.1991 § 2803(6); Middaugh v. State, 767 P.2d 432, 435-436 (Okl.Cr.1988). ¶38 Second, Appellant claims the DNA evidence was inadmissible because the PCR method of DNA testing is a novel scientific method that has not yet been approved for use in Oklahoma courts.

1998Reid v. State, 478 P.2d 988, 999 (Okl.Cr.1970); 12 O.S.1991 § 2803(6); Middaugh v. State, 767 P.2d 432, 435-436 (Okl.Cr.1988). ¶ 38 Second, Appellant claims the DNA evidence was inadmissible because the PCR method of DNA testing is a novel scientific method that has not yet been approved for use in Oklahoma courts.

1998Reid v. State, 478 P.2d 988, 999 (Okl.Cr.1970); 12 O.S.1991 § 2803(6); Middaugh v. State, 767 P.2d 432, 435-436 (Okl.Cr.1988). ¶38 Second, Appellant claims the DNA evidence was inadmissible because the PCR method of DNA testing is a novel scientific method that has not yet been approved for use in Oklahoma courts.

1996See also Frazier v. State, 874 P.2d 1289, 1292 (Okl.Cr.1994) ("pen-pack" falls squarely within section 2803). [33] This Court has sanctioned this format.

1996See also Frazier v. State, 874 P.2d 1289, 1292 (Okl.Cr.1994) (“pen-pack" falls squarely within section 2803). .

1996Cr.1993) (State introduced evidence that defendant killed another person). [31] The convenience store clerk had already testified and identified Charm as the one who robbed her. [32] See Hall v. State, 650 P.2d 893, 899 (Okl.Cr. 1982) (prison records containing information about an inmate's history of misconduct within the system fell within the business records exception to the hearsay rule found at 12 O.S.1981, § 2803(8), and were not excluded under section 2803(8)(a)-(e)).

1996See Hall v. State, 650 P.2d 893, 899 (Okl.Cr.1982) (prison records containing information about an inmate's history of misconduct within the system fell within the business records exception to the hearsay rule found at 12 O.S.1981, § 2803(8), and were not excluded under section 2803(8)(a)-(e)).

1989See Maytubby v. State, 665 P.2d 849, 851 (Okla.

1989See Maytubby v. State, 665 P.2d 849, 851 (Okla.Crim.App.1983).

1979This Court in Bailey v. State, Okl.Cr., 494 P.2d 1252, 1253 (1972), stated that a “parole officer’s conclusion that the defendant left the State, although based upon hearsay testimony is admissible in a revocation hearing.” This writer dissented to that case on the grounds that hearsay evidence was not “competent” evidence as required by the statute.