To prove these elements, DOT offered the police report regarding the underlying accident. Thus, if the police report is inadmissible, DOT cannot sustain its burden. Nevertheless, DOT argues that the police report was properly admitted into evidence under the official records exception to the hearsay rule. Because that portion of the police report which addresses the issue in this case, i.e., whether Jennings maintained financial responsibility on his vehicle at the time of the accident, lacks trustworthiness as a source of information, we conclude that the police report is not admissible under the official records exception to the hearsay rule. These responses lack trustworthiness for several reasons.
Official records are admissible as evidence of the existence or nonexistence of facts .
The brevity of the responses in the police report renders them ambiguous and, thus, unreliable as proof of the critical fact at issue here. Although the responses could reflect Jennings' admission to the reporting officer that Jennings had no auto insurance at the time of the accident, the responses could as easily indicate Jennings' simple failure to produce proof of his insurance coverage when asked to do so by the officer. If the former scenario is the case, the responses would accurately reflect the fact that Jennings had no insurance. Without the testimony of the officer to provide a context for the report, we cannot trust that the police report alone provides reliable information as to whether Jennings had insurance at the relevant time. In short, the police report lacks trustworthiness regarding the fact at issue here, and thus, it was not admissible under the official records exception to the hearsay rule.