business records exception in North Carolina

2022App. 628, 640 , 777 S.E.2d 341, 349 (2015). ¶ 19 In State v. Miller, this Court held that the results of an emergency room blood alcohol test were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. 80 N.C.

2022Barnes testified that the reports admitted at the hearing were “true and correct copies of the records that were made,” that “to the best of [his] knowledge, these records were all made on persons having knowledge,” and the records were made “during the regular course of business at or near the time of the events recorded.” ¶ 23 Barnes was qualified to authenticate the results of the tests under the business records exception, though he did not personally perform the drug tests, because his testimony demonstrated that he was “familiar with the business entries and the system under which they a

2002The business records exception is “one of the well recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.” Sims v. Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32, 35 , 125 S.E.2d 326, 328 (1962).

1992In Sims v. Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32, 125 S.E.2d 326 (1962), the Supreme Court applied the business records exception for hospital records and set forth the following requirements for their introduction: In instances where hospital records are legally admissible in evidence, proper foundation must, of course, be laid for their introduction.

2025Indeed, it is well established that properly authenticated records kept by a department of social services in a juvenile matter may be “admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.” In re Smith, 56 N.C.

2005This Court stated that "[w]hile [the witness] did not personally conduct the interviews of the children, and she testified to the content of both these interviews, [the petitioner] offered and this Court accepts that these statements are admissible under the ordinary course of business hearsay exception." 162 N.C.App. at 394-95 , 591 S.E.2d at 590 (citing In re Smith, 56 N.C.App. 142, 148 , 287 S.E.2d 440, 444 ("While it is true that the witnesses had no firsthand knowledge ... when they assumed responsibility of the case, *920 each had familiarized herself with the case history of the client

2022App. 628, 640 , 777 S.E.2d 341, 349 (2015). ¶ 19 In State v. Miller, this Court held that the results of an emergency room blood alcohol test were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. 80 N.C.

2022App. 628, 640 , 777 S.E.2d 341, 349 (2015). ¶ 19 In State v. Miller, this Court held that the results of an emergency room blood alcohol test were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. 80 N.C.

2026Moreover, we have held “that even though a witness’s knowledge was limited to the contents of the [DSS] file with which he had familiarized himself, he could properly testify about the records and their significance so long as the records themselves were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.” In re C.R.B., 245 N.C.

2025As this Court has recognized, “even though a witness’s knowledge was limited to the contents of . . . [a parent]’s file with which [s]he had familiarized h[er]self, [s]he could properly testify about the records and their significance so long as the records themselves were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.” Id. at 69, 781 S.E.2d at 850 (cleaned up).

2020Relying on its own precedent, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument and held that “hearsay statements based on ‘GPS tracking evidence and simultaneously prepared reports are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.’ ” State v. Waycaster, 260 N.C.

2020Relying on its own precedent, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument and held that “hearsay statements based on ‘GPS tracking evidence and simultaneously prepared reports are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.’ ” State v. Waycaster, 260 N.C.

1988Furthermore, in State v. Wood, 306 N.C. 510, 516 , 294 S.E. 2d 310, 313 (1982), this Court indicated that the requirement that the records be prepared ante litem motam is an important element of the business records exception.

1988Furthermore, in State v. Wood, 306 N.C. 510, 516 , 294 S.E. 2d 310, 313 (1982), this Court indicated that the requirement that the records be prepared ante litem motam is an important element of the business records exception.

2026Under the business records exception, “business records of regularly conducted activity are not excluded by the hearsay rule[.]” In re S.D.J., 192 N.C.

2025One such exception is the business records exception, “which provides that business records of regularly conducted activity are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is unavailable as a witness.” In re S.D.J., 192 N.C.

2018Thus, the business records exception recognizes "[t]he impossibility of producing in court all the persons who observed, reported and recorded each individual transaction...." State v. Springer , 283 N.C. 627 , 634, 197 S.E.2d 530 , 535 (1973) (citation omitted).

2018Thus, the business records exception recognizes "[t]he impossibility of producing in court all the persons who observed, reported and recorded each individual transaction...." State v. Springer , 283 N.C. 627 , 634, 197 S.E.2d 530 , 535 (1973) (citation omitted).

2022We held that the trial court did not err in admitting the record of the results under the business records exception because the social worker, “in the course of regularly conducted business activity, collected respondent’s sample, ordered the drug test and subsequently filed the results of the drug test with her office.” Id. at 484 , 665 S.E.2d at 822 . ¶ 21 Like the nurse and doctor in Miller and the social worker in S.D.J., Barnes was a qualified witness to authenticate the records of the positive drug test results.

2022We held that the trial court did not err in admitting the record of the results under the business records exception because the social worker, “in the course of regularly conducted business activity, collected respondent’s sample, ordered the drug test and subsequently filed the results of the drug test with her office.” Id. at 484 , 665 S.E.2d at 822 . ¶ 21 Like the nurse and doctor in Miller and the social worker in S.D.J., Barnes was a qualified witness to authenticate the records of the positive drug test results.

2018State v. Wilson, 313 N.C. 516 , 533, 330 S.E.2d 450 , 462 (1985) (citations omitted). *689 Our Court has previously held that hearsay statements based on "GPS tracking evidence and simultaneously prepared reports are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule." State v. Gardner , 237 N.C.

2018State v. Wilson, 313 N.C. 516 , 533, 330 S.E.2d 450 , 462 (1985) (citations omitted). *689 Our Court has previously held that hearsay statements based on "GPS tracking evidence and simultaneously prepared reports are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule." State v. Gardner , 237 N.C.

2016This Court has previously determined that even though a witness's knowledge was "limited to the contents of [the] plaintiff's file with which he had familiarized himself, he could properly testify about the records and their significance so long as the records themselves were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule[.]" U.S. Leasing Corp. v. Everett, Creech, Hancock, and Herzig, 88 N.C.App. 418 , 423, 363 S.E.2d 665 , 667 (1988).

2016This Court has previously determined that even though a witness's knowledge was "limited to the contents of [the] plaintiff's file with which he had familiarized himself, he could properly testify about the records and their significance so long as the records themselves were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule[.]" U.S. Leasing Corp. v. Everett, Creech, Hancock, and Herzig, 88 N.C.App. 418 , 423, 363 S.E.2d 665 , 667 (1988).

2025As this Court has recognized, “even though a witness’s knowledge was limited to the contents of . . . [a parent]’s file with which [s]he had familiarized h[er]self, [s]he could properly testify about the records and their significance so long as the records themselves were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.” Id. at 69, 781 S.E.2d at 850 (cleaned up).

2013App. 640, 645 , 366 S.E.2d 921, 924 (1988) (holding there was an insufficient foundation to admit telephone records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule where the accuracy of a machine that recorded call information had not been verified), defendant asserts it was necessary for the State to elicit testimony to verify the accuracy of the electronic monitoring data.

2006In Crawford , the Supreme Court held that “[wjhere testimonial evidence is at issue,... the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 158 L.

2006In Crawford , the Supreme Court held that “[wjhere testimonial evidence is at issue,... the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 158 L.

2005See State v. Carroll, 356 N.C. 526, 574 , 573 S.E.2d 899, 913 (2002) (stating that fingerprint cards are “clearly admissible” under the business records exception to the hearsay rule), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 949 , 156 L.