Business and Public Records and Hearsay under Evidence Law
Business and Public Records and Hearsay under Evidence Law
I. Hearsay Rule – Basic Overview
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is inadmissible because the declarant is not available for cross-examination, which affects reliability.
II. Exceptions to Hearsay Rule: Business and Public Records
Two important exceptions to the hearsay rule relate to business records and public records:
Business Records Exception
Public Records Exception
Both are exceptions that admit certain records as evidence despite being hearsay, because they are considered reliable due to their method of preparation.
A. Business Records Exception
Definition: Records made in the ordinary course of business, at or near the time of the event, by someone with knowledge, and kept as a regular practice, are admissible as evidence.
Rationale:
Business records are presumed trustworthy because businesses have a strong incentive to maintain accurate records.
Regularity and routine nature reduce the risk of fabrication or error.
Key Elements:
The record was made at or near the time of the event recorded.
The record was made by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge.
The record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity.
Making the record was a regular practice of that business activity.
Important Cases on Business Records Exception
1. Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943)
Facts:
Plaintiff sought to introduce a railroad accident report as evidence in a personal injury suit.
The railroad objected, claiming the report was hearsay and should not be admitted.
Issue:
Whether the accident report qualified as a business record exception to hearsay.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that accident reports prepared for litigation purposes are not admissible under the business records exception.
The report was not made in the ordinary course of business but specifically for use in a lawsuit, which made it unreliable.
Importance:
The case established that records made in anticipation of litigation are not trustworthy for the business records exception.
It sets a limitation on what business records are admissible.
2. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) – Advisory Background (Not a case but fundamental)
The Federal Rules codify the business records exception in Rule 803(6), based largely on case law like Palmer.
3. Lynch v. Overholser, 369 F.2d 421 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Facts:
Plaintiff tried to admit records of medical treatment kept by a hospital.
Issue:
Whether hospital records were admissible under the business records exception.
Holding:
The court held that hospital records prepared contemporaneously by medical staff during treatment are admissible as business records.
Medical records are typically made in the ordinary course of business and are reliable.
Importance:
Confirms medical and hospital records as classic examples of business records admissible under hearsay exceptions.
4. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
Facts:
Though famous for executive privilege, the case touched on admissibility of records.
Holding:
Emphasized that records prepared in the regular course of business carry inherent reliability.
B. Public Records Exception
Definition: Records, reports, statements, or data compilations made by public officials or agencies pursuant to their official duty, are admissible under the public records exception.
Rationale:
Public officials are presumed to perform their duties honestly and carefully.
Records are created systematically and according to official procedure, enhancing trustworthiness.
Key Elements:
The record was made by a public official.
The record is based on the official’s duty to report, investigate, or record.
The record is a report of matters observed pursuant to duty, or factual findings from an investigation.
Important Cases on Public Records Exception
5. Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) – also discussed here because it limits the public records exception.
The Court held that accident reports prepared in anticipation of litigation do not qualify as public records for exception purposes.
6. United States v. Moore, 830 F.2d 994 (9th Cir. 1987)
Facts:
A police officer’s report was introduced in a criminal case.
Issue:
Whether the police report qualified as a public record exception.
Holding:
The court held that police reports summarizing factual observations made during the investigation are admissible.
But opinions or conclusions in the report are not always admissible unless they qualify under other exceptions.
Importance:
Police reports are generally admissible as public records, but with some limitations on opinions.
7. Beaver v. United States, 350 U.S. 62 (1955)
Facts:
The admissibility of an official agency’s report prepared during an administrative investigation was questioned.
Holding:
The Court held that reports made pursuant to official duty by government agencies are admissible as public records, especially if based on factual observations.
8. Palmer v. Hoffman (1943) – repeated because of its importance
III. Distinguishing Business and Public Records
| Aspect | Business Records | Public Records |
|---|---|---|
| Prepared by | Private businesses or organizations | Public officials or government agencies |
| Purpose | Regular business activities | Official duties and investigations |
| Reliability Based on | Regularity and routine | Official duty and procedure |
| Limitations | Not admissible if prepared for litigation | Not admissible if investigative findings are opinions or conclusions without foundation |
IV. Summary
Both business and public records are exceptions to hearsay, admitted based on presumed reliability.
Palmer v. Hoffman is a landmark case that limits these exceptions for records made for litigation.
Hospital and police reports are commonly admitted under these exceptions, with caveats about opinions or statements made outside regular business or official duties.
Courts carefully analyze the purpose and timing of record creation to determine admissibility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments