Opinion ID: 2532489
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in admitting an unauthenticated water bill.

Text: ¶ 11. Over the objection of Brown's counsel, the trial court admitted in evidence a copy of a water bill from 1032 North Joe Wheeler Avenue in Laurel, showing Brown's name on the bill as of November 12, 2008. Officer Williams testified that the bill had been obtained from the city clerk's office, and to his knowledge the bill was a record kept in the normal course of business by the City of Laurel. Brown, however, asserts that the trial court erred in admitting the water bill solely on Officer Williams's testimony and that the document was not properly authenticated, thus rendering the document inadmissible. ¶ 12. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803 states, in pertinent part, that: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness or self-authenticated pursuant to Rule 902(11), unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term business as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit. Miss. R. Evid. 803(6) (emphasis added). Under Rule 803(6), the focus is properly placed on the time period when the documents were created, the trustworthiness of the documents, and whether their creation was in the regular course of business. Ferguson v. Snell, 905 So.2d 516, 519 (Miss.2004). Brown argues that Officer Williams was not acting within the course and scope of the City of Laurel Water Department's regularly conducted business, and therefore, Officer Williams's testimony could not authenticate the water bill under Rule 803(6). The State, however, argues that Brown is a qualified witness within the meaning of Rule 803(6) and there is no evidence to indicate lack of trustworthiness as the exhibit was simply a copy of a utility bill for water usage from the City of Laurel to Brown for payment due. See Miss. R. Evid. 803(6). ¶ 13. Ultimately, this dispute is of no moment, and any potential error is certainly harmless. See Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 867, 872-73 (Miss.1998) (the inquiry is not whether the jury considered the improper evidence or law at all, but rather, whether that error was `unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record.'). The State had only to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown knowingly or intentionally sold or transferred cocaine to Jones. The exact address of Brown's residence was unnecessary for conviction; the only inquiry was whether the sale of cocaine took place in the judicial district where the trial was held. Further, the record reveals that evidence linking Brown to the residence on North Joe Wheeler Avenue in Laurel was cumulative. Jones testified that he had purchased the cocaine from Brown at Brown's residence on Joe Wheeler Avenue. Both Jones and Officer Williams had identified Brown as the person selling the cocaine to Jones, and Jones had identified a photograph of the residence on Joe Wheeler Avenue as being the front of the house where he had purchased the cocaine from Brown. Thus, as determined by the trial court, the address where the sale of cocaine from Brown to Jones had taken place was in the Second Judicial District of Jones County. Therefore, we find that this issue likewise is without merit, as any possible error undoubtedly would be harmless. See Williams v. State, 991 So.2d 593, 599 (Miss.2008) (error is harmless when insignificant or unimportant to extent that automatic reversal of conviction not required).