Opinion ID: 901527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of Testimony Concerning the Contents of Public Records.

Text: [¶ 7.] At trial, Gayland Schmidt, a detective with the Sioux Falls Police Department, testified about his investigation of the allegations against Williams. Specifically, Schmidt testified that he received a list of the properties in which Williams allegedly invested. The jury then heard the following exchange between the prosecutor and Schmidt: Q: With that information did you make any attempt to discover if there was any corroboration for representations made to [Crago] that those properties had been purchased by Mr. Williams and [Crago]? A: Yes, I did. Q: And how did you go about seeing if there was any corroboration to the fact? A: I went to the Minnehaha County Register of Deeds Office, which is public records and they allowed me to look up on their computer base the ownership of those properties. Q: Did you know how to use that system when you got there? A: They taught me how to use that. Q: Was it complicated? A: No. Q: Did you then go through each of those properties individually to determine if there was any corroboration for [Crago]'s belief that they had been transferred to Mr. Williams and himself? A: I looked up each property. Q: And did you find any corroboration of any of those properties being transferred to Mr. Williams or [the victim]? . . . A: No, I could not. Williams objected to the admission of this testimony, but his objection was overruled. He now appeals that evidentiary ruling. Williams argues that Schmidt's testimony regarding the contents of the deed records constituted inadmissible hearsay. Williams admits that the contents of public records are admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay exclusion rule, SDCL 19-16-12 (Rule 803(8)), which allows the admission of public records kept by public offices or agencies under a duty to report. Williams argues, however, that the best evidence rule, SDCL 19-18-2 (Rule 1002), requires the production of certified copies of those records. Williams claims that without that evidence the State failed to establish that he defrauded Crago. [¶ 8.] We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Mattson, 2005 SD 71, ¶ 13, 698 N.W.2d 538, 544. Even if error is found, however, it must be prejudicial in nature before this Court will overturn the trial court's evidentiary ruling. Id. (citation omitted). Under the rules of evidence, hearsay is an out-of-court assertion, either oral or written, which is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. SDCL 19-16-1 (Rule 801(a) to (c)). Hearsay is generally inadmissible. SDCL 19-16-4 (Rule 802). [¶ 9.] In this case, the evidence concerning the public records was offered to show that Williams never owned the properties he purported to own when soliciting investments from the victims. While not specifically cited by the trial court, Rule 803(10) explicitly allows the type of testimony at issue here. That rule, known as the negative records rule, provides: To prove the absence of a record . . . or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record . . . was regularly made and preserved by a public office or agency, evidence in the form of. . . testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose the record . . . is not excluded by [SDCL] 19-16-4, even though the declarant is available as a witness. SDCL 19-16-14 (Rule 803(10)) (emphasis added). Under the federal counterpart to Rule 803(10), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has admitted similar evidence in a criminal case. United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020-21 (8thCir.1992). The defendant in Hale was charged with possession of unregistered firearms. Id. at 1017. To prove the lack of registration, the government introduced two affidavits by specialists from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which stated that after a diligent search of firearms registration records, no record was located that showed any application by the defendant to register his weapons. Id. at 1020. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was admissible hearsay under the federal negative records rule [1] and that such evidence did not violate the constitutional right to confrontation. Id. at 1021. [¶ 10.] Here, confrontation was not an issue because Schmidt testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. Consequently, Rule 803(10) renders Schmidt's testimony admissible hearsay. Pursuant to the rule, the State was able to offer proof through Schmidt's testimony that Williams had no ownership in the investment properties as he had claimed, that is, proof of the absence of a record of ownership. Even though SDCL 19-16-14 (Rule 803(10)) was not specifically cited, the trial court correctly concluded that the testimony was not inadmissible hearsay. [¶ 11.] Williams' objection based on the best evidence rule, SDCL 19-18-2 (Rule 1002), also fails because the testimony was not offered to prove the contents of a record. As we have stated, the best evidence rule applies only when one seeks to prove the contents of documents or recordings. [It] is inapplicable when content is not at issue. State v. Downing, 2002 SD 148, ¶ 12, 654 N.W.2d 793, 797 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Schmidt's testimony.