Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Howegreen1 sentence2012(Citation omitted.) Noting that a foundation.for fingerprint cards is often laid using the business records exception, see State v. Howe, 159 N.H. 366, 373 (2009), he contends that the State failed to lay such a foundation here. | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Catholic Medical Centergreen1 sentence2007Ctr., 145 N.H. 7, 17 (2000) (stating that the entirety of the business records exception requires the proponent of the document to elicit testimony regarding “the identity and mode of preparation of the proffered document, and ... that it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the transaction recorded”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Berrygreen1 sentence2007We disagree, because “where [the] trial court reaches [the] correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” Cohoon v. IDM Software, 153 N.H. 1, 4 (2005); see also State v. Berry, 148 N.H. 88, 93 (2002) (“[E]ven though the trial judge did not conduct [the correct evidentiary] analysis ... its decision to admit the evidence reached the correct result and reversal is not warranted.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cohoon v. IDM Software, Inc.green1 sentence2007We disagree, because “where [the] trial court reaches [the] correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” Cohoon v. IDM Software, 153 N.H. 1, 4 (2005); see also State v. Berry, 148 N.H. 88, 93 (2002) (“[E]ven though the trial judge did not conduct [the correct evidentiary] analysis ... its decision to admit the evidence reached the correct result and reversal is not warranted.”). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007Thus, as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reasoned, "where a document is created primarily for the government to use . . . as a substitute for live testimony in a criminal prosecution, the fact that the document might happen to fall within the jurisdiction's business records exception to the hearsay rule does not render the document non-testimonial." Thomas, 914 A.2d at 14 ; see also Johnson v. State, 929 So.2d 4, 7 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2005), review granted, 924 So.2d 810 (Fla. 2006). 2007Thus, as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reasoned, “where a document is created primarily for the government to use ... as a substitute for live testimony in a criminal prosecution, the fact that the document might happen to fall within the jurisdiction’s business records exception to the hearsay rule does not render the document non-testimonial.” Thomas, 914 A.2d at 14 ; see also Johnson v. State, 929 So. 2d 4, 7 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Schultz v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Thus, as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reasoned, "where a document is created primarily for the government to use . . . as a substitute for live testimony in a criminal prosecution, the fact that the document might happen to fall within the jurisdiction's business records exception to the hearsay rule does not render the document non-testimonial." Thomas, 914 A.2d at 14 ; see also Johnson v. State, 929 So.2d 4, 7 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2005), review granted, 924 So.2d 810 (Fla. 2006). 2007Ct. App. 2005), review granted, 924 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hammellgreen1 sentence2007However, “[t]he admission of inadmissible evidence does not always require reversal.” State v. Hammell, 155 N.H. 47, 51 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2007See Thomas v. United States, 914 A.2d 1, 13-14 (D.C. 2006), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 28, 2007) (No. 07-5053); State v. Miller, 144 P.3d 1052, 105860 (Or. 2007Thomas, 914 A.2d at 14 ; Miller, 144 P.3d at 1060 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Joseph E. Smithgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 172 U.S. App. D.C. 297, 306 , 521 F.2d 957, 966 (1975) (discussing the generally accepted “litigation records” doctrine that would “deny the business records exception to any document prepared with an eye toward litigation when offered by the party responsible for making the record.”). 2007See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 172 U.S. App. D.C. 297, 306 , 521 F.2d 957, 966 (1975) (discussing the generally accepted “litigation records” doctrine that would “deny the business records exception to any document prepared with an eye toward litigation when offered by the party responsible for making the record.”). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Thus, as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reasoned, "where a document is created primarily for the government to use . . . as a substitute for live testimony in a criminal prosecution, the fact that the document might happen to fall within the jurisdiction's business records exception to the hearsay rule does not render the document non-testimonial." Thomas, 914 A.2d at 14 ; see also Johnson v. State, 929 So.2d 4, 7 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2005), review granted, 924 So.2d 810 (Fla. 2006). 2007Thus, as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reasoned, “where a document is created primarily for the government to use ... as a substitute for live testimony in a criminal prosecution, the fact that the document might happen to fall within the jurisdiction’s business records exception to the hearsay rule does not render the document non-testimonial.” Thomas, 914 A.2d at 14 ; see also Johnson v. State, 929 So. 2d 4, 7 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Lakes Region Construction Co.green2 sentences2000“The rationale behind extending the business records exception to include medical records was to bring accurate and reliable records into the courtroom in order to strike a sensible balance between the conflicting interests of the medical profession . . . and the discovery of truth in litigation.” Id. at 715 , 474 A.2d at 1039 (quotations omitted). 2000“The rationale behind extending the business records exception to include medical records was to bring accurate and reliable records into the courtroom in order to strike a sensible balance between the conflicting interests of the medical profession . . . and the discovery of truth in litigation.” Id. at 715 , 474 A.2d at 1039 (quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1984The business records exception requires the proponent of the document to produce the custodian of the record, or another qualified witness, to testify about the identity and mode of prepara tion of the proffered document, and to testify that it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the transaction recorded. “[V]erification of the authenticity, regularity and correctness of such records by ‘the official having them in charge,’ ” Williams v. Williams, 87 N.H. 430, 431 , 182 A. 172, 173 (1935) (citation omitted), or by another qualified witness, constitutes the proper 1984The business records exception requires the proponent of the document to produce the custodian of the record, or another qualified witness, to testify about the identity and mode of prepara tion of the proffered document, and to testify that it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the transaction recorded. “[V]erification of the authenticity, regularity and correctness of such records by ‘the official having them in charge,’ ” Williams v. Williams, 87 N.H. 430, 431 , 182 A. 172, 173 (1935) (citation omitted), or by another qualified witness, constitutes the proper | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Walkergreen2 sentences1984The business records exception to the hearsay rule, codified at RSA 521:2, provides: “A record of an act, condition or event, shall, in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.” The rationale behind extending the business records exception to include medi 1984The business records exception to the hearsay rule, codified at RSA 521:2, provides: “A record of an act, condition or event, shall, in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.” The rationale behind extending the business records exception to include medi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pace v. State
green
1 sentence2019App. 491 , 375 S.W.3d 751 , 757 (2010) (stating that if "the employee's testimony provides an adequate foundation to satisfy an exception to the hearsay rule such as the business-records exception ..., then the law regards the employee's testimony as sufficiently trustworthy to be admitted into evidence"); State v. Farrer , 57 Wash.App. 207 , 787 P.2d 935 , 936 (1990) (holding that testimony of grocery store security officer as to price of stolen items, although based on ticket price, was admissible given that "[a]n adequate foundation ha[d] been laid"). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Cities Service Oil Company v. Coleman Oil Company, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019"Under well established rules of evidence, ... a witness may testify to the contents of records kept in the regular course of business without having personal knowledge of the facts reported therein." Cities Service Oil Company v. Coleman Oil Company, Inc. , 470 F.2d 925 , 932 (1st Cir. 1972). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Wall
green
1 sentence2019Id . at 244, 910 A.2d 1253 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Farrer
green
2 sentences2019App. 491 , 375 S.W.3d 751 , 757 (2010) (stating that if "the employee's testimony provides an adequate foundation to satisfy an exception to the hearsay rule such as the business-records exception ..., then the law regards the employee's testimony as sufficiently trustworthy to be admitted into evidence"); State v. Farrer , 57 Wash.App. 207 , 787 P.2d 935 , 936 (1990) (holding that testimony of grocery store security officer as to price of stolen items, although based on ticket price, was admissible given that "[a]n adequate foundation ha[d] been laid"). 2019App. 491 , 375 S.W.3d 751 , 757 (2010) (stating that if "the employee's testimony provides an adequate foundation to satisfy an exception to the hearsay rule such as the business-records exception ..., then the law regards the employee's testimony as sufficiently trustworthy to be admitted into evidence"); State v. Farrer , 57 Wash.App. 207 , 787 P.2d 935 , 936 (1990) (holding that testimony of grocery store security officer as to price of stolen items, although based on ticket price, was admissible given that "[a]n adequate foundation ha[d] been laid"). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007Courts applying the business records exception seize upon dicta from Crawford , in which the Court noted that at the time the Framers drafted the Federal Constitution, "[m]ost of the hearsay exceptions covered statements that by their nature were not testimonial — for example, business records or statements in furtherance of a conspiracy." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2007Courts applying the business records exception seize upon dicta from Crawford , in which the Court noted that at the time the Framers drafted the Federal Constitution, “[m]ost of the hearsay exceptions covered statements that by their nature were not testimonial — for example, business records or statements in furtherance of a conspiracy.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Horned Eagle
green
2 sentences2007However, “[i]nasmuch as Rule 803(8)(B) specifically excludes reports prepared by law enforcement officers from the public records exception to the hearsay rule if used against a criminal defendant, such records cannot be admitted under the business records exception.” Horned Eagle, 214 F. Supp. 2d at 1042 . 2007That is, “the business records exception cannot be used as a ‘back door’ to introduce evidence that would not be admissible under Rule 803(8)(B).” Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Miller
neutral
1 sentence2007See Thomas v. United States, 914 A.2d 1, 13-14 (D.C.2006), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. June 28, 2007) (No. 07-5053); State v. Miller, 208 Or.App. 424 , 144 P.3d 1052, 1058-60 , adhered to on reconsideration, 210 Or. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.