business records hearsay exception in Michigan

2016Specifically, plaintiffs rely on Central Fabricators, Inc v Big Dutchman, 398 Mich 352 ; 247 NW2d 804 (1976), for the proposition that the claim notes are admissible under the business records hearsay exception.

2016Specifically, plaintiffs rely on Central Fabricators, Inc v Big Dutchman, 398 Mich 352 ; 247 NW2d 804 (1976), for the proposition that the claim notes are admissible under the business records hearsay exception.

1997Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the report of expert witness Dr. Hickok pursuant to MRE 803(6), commonly referred to as the business records exception to the hearsay rule.* 2 As explained in Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104, 120 ; 457 NW2d 669 (1990), “the traditional business records hearsay exception is justified on grounds of trustworthiness: unintentional mistakes made in the preparation of a record would very likely be detected and corrected.” While this exception has evolved and been expanded from its “traditional” roots, “trustworthin

1997Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the report of expert witness Dr. Hickok pursuant to MRE 803(6), commonly referred to as the business records exception to the hearsay rule.* 2 As explained in Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104, 120 ; 457 NW2d 669 (1990), “the traditional business records hearsay exception is justified on grounds of trustworthiness: unintentional mistakes made in the preparation of a record would very likely be detected and corrected.” While this exception has evolved and been expanded from its “traditional” roots, “trustworthin

1990Although two members of the panel agreed with plaintiff that the trial court also committed error by giving a modified version of SJI2d 13.07, stating the so-called rescue doctrine, the Court found this error *113 to be harmless. [2] The Court of Appeals, therefore, affirmed the decision of the trial court. 166 Mich App 19 ; 420 NW2d 160 (1988).

1990Although two members of the panel agreed with plaintiff that the trial court also committed error by giving a modified version of SJI2d 13.07, stating the so-called rescue doctrine, the Court found this error *113 to be harmless. [2] The Court of Appeals, therefore, affirmed the decision of the trial court. 166 Mich App 19 ; 420 NW2d 160 (1988).

1971II We begin just as we did in a recent case considering an analogous claim, People v. Gauthier (1970) , 28 Mich App 318 , leave to appeal denied (1971) , 384 Mich 812 : “This case requires an interpretation of the right of confrontation guaranteed to criminal defendants by [Const 1963, art 1, § 20], 2 as well as by virtue of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.* 2 3 At issue is the scope of the confrontation right in criminal cases when read in light of a recognised exception to the hearsay rule — specifically, the business records hearsay exception.” (Footnotes renumbered, e

1971II We begin just as we did in a recent case considering an analogous claim, People v. Gauthier (1970) , 28 Mich App 318 , leave to appeal denied (1971) , 384 Mich 812 : “This case requires an interpretation of the right of confrontation guaranteed to criminal defendants by [Const 1963, art 1, § 20], 2 as well as by virtue of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.* 2 3 At issue is the scope of the confrontation right in criminal cases when read in light of a recognised exception to the hearsay rule — specifically, the business records hearsay exception.” (Footnotes renumbered, e

1970This case requires an interpretation of the right of confrontation guaranteed to criminal defendants by Const 1963, art 1, § 20, 1 as well as by virtue of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2 At issue is the scope of the confrontation right in criminal cases when read in light of a recognized exception to the hearsay rule — specifically, the business records hearsay exception. 3 *321 We acknowledge at the outset that People v. Lewis (1940), 294 Mich 684 , stands firmly against the admission of business record hearsay in criminal cases, the statutory exception notwithstandin

1970The foundation here fairly duplicates the record made in Keeble v. United States (CA8,1965), *327 347 F2d 951, cert den (1965), 382 US 940 ( 86 S Ct 394 , 15 L Ed 2d 350 ), in support of admission under the Federal Business Records Act 8 of a log entry to prove an individual’s whereabouts on an occasion in question: “The log was offered for the purpose of proving that appellant entered the project at 10:40 a.m. on May 9 and not at some earlier hour.

1970The foundation here fairly duplicates the record made in Keeble v. United States (CA8,1965), *327 347 F2d 951, cert den (1965), 382 US 940 ( 86 S Ct 394 , 15 L Ed 2d 350 ), in support of admission under the Federal Business Records Act 8 of a log entry to prove an individual’s whereabouts on an occasion in question: “The log was offered for the purpose of proving that appellant entered the project at 10:40 a.m. on May 9 and not at some earlier hour.

1970The foundation here fairly duplicates the record made in Keeble v. United States (CA8,1965), *327 347 F2d 951, cert den (1965), 382 US 940 ( 86 S Ct 394 , 15 L Ed 2d 350 ), in support of admission under the Federal Business Records Act 8 of a log entry to prove an individual’s whereabouts on an occasion in question: “The log was offered for the purpose of proving that appellant entered the project at 10:40 a.m. on May 9 and not at some earlier hour.