Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 233
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 78 (2026)

Entry, writing or record made in regular course of business; impeachment

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 78. An entry in an account kept in a book or by a card system or by any other system of keeping accounts, or a writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence or event, shall not be inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding as evidence of the facts therein stated because it is transcribed or because it is hearsay or self-serving, if the court finds that the entry, writing or record was made in good faith in the regular course of business and before the beginning of the civil or criminal proceeding aforesaid and that it was the regular course of such business to make such memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence or event or within a reasonable time thereafter. For the purposes hereof, the word ''business'', in addition to its ordinary meaning, shall include profession, occupation and calling of every kind. The court, in its discretion, before admitting such entry, writing or record in evidence, may, to such extent as it deems practicable or desirable, but to no greater extent than the law required before April eleventh, nineteen hundred and thirteen, require the party offering the same to produce and offer in evidence the original entry, writing, document or account or any other from which the entry, writing or record offered or the facts therein stated were transcribed or taken, and to call as his witness any person who made the entry, writing or record offered or the original or any other entry, writing, document or account from which the entry, writing or record offered or the facts therein stated were transcribed or taken, or who has personal knowledge of the facts stated in the entry, writing or record offered. When any such entry, writing or record is admitted, all other circumstances of the making thereof, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect its weight and when such entry, writing or record is admitted in a criminal proceeding all questions of fact which must be determined by the court as the basis for the admissibility of the evidence involved shall be submitted to the jury, if a jury trial is had for its final determination.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 185 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1922–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Fulgiam, 73 N.E.3d 798 (Mass. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Fulgiam, 73 N.E.3d 798 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 8× “See G. L. c. 233, § 78; Mass. G. Evid. § 803(6)(A) & note (2017).”
Wingate v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 432 N.E.2d 474 (Mass. 1982). · cites it 14× “In so doing, we define certain limits in the application of G.L.c. 233, § 78, the so-called business records statute.”
Commonwealth v. Tran, 953 N.E.2d 139 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 7× “The Commonwealth offered the documents under the business records statute, G. L. c. 233, § 78, as circumstantial evidence of the defendants’ consciousness of guilt.”
Commonwealth v. Zeininger, 947 N.E.2d 1060 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 5× “Given this fact, we conclude that they were admissible in evidence as business records pursuant to G. L. c. 233, § 78, and were not testimonial statements within the scope of protection afforded by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
DiMarzo v. Am. Mut. Ins., 449 N.E.2d 1189 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 4× “Quinn to American Mutual concerning the scheduling of the declaratory judgment action, the circumstances of the accident, and the status of a companion case.”
Tosti v. Ayik, 476 N.E.2d 928 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 5× “The defendants sought to introduce as business records, pur *489 suant to G. L. c. 233, § 78, four memoranda from G.”
Beal Bank, SSB v. Eurich, 831 N.E.2d 909 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 4× “1 G. L. c. 233, § 78. We conclude the judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting this evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Irene, 970 N.E.2d 291 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 4× “Because we conclude that the trial judge erred in admitting the defendant’s medical records under the statutory exception for business records, G. L. c. 233, § 78 (§ 78), and that the disputed portion of the records was not shown to be admissible under the hospital records…”
Commonwealth v. Trapp, 485 N.E.2d 162 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 4× “4 *208 These records were admitted as business records under G. L. c. 233, § 78 (1984 ed.). 5 Before business records can be admitted under § 78, the judge must make four preliminary findings: (1) that the entry was made in good faith, (2) in the regular course of business, (3)…”
Commonwealth v. Bargeron, 524 N.E.2d 829 (Mass. 1988). · cites it 4× “In Greenberg , the Commonwealth introduced documentary evidence against the defendants by force of G.L.c. 233, § 78, the so-called business record exception to the hearsay rule.”
Poirier v. Town of Plymouth, 372 N.E.2d 212 (Mass. 1978). · cites it 2× “Again, the defendant's argument is more properly aimed at the weight to be given the evidence than at its admissibility. The trial judge was most careful in assuring that a proper foundation for the construction plans was laid under the business records exception to the hearsay…”
Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 2× “See G.L.c. 233, § 78. It first claims that the letter was not a record kept in the ordinary course of business.”
Show all 185 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.