Opinion ID: 1823270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in allowing the internet billing documents into evidence.

Text: ¶ 39. Cindy asserts that the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error by holding her use of the Internet was excessive and unusual based upon unauthenticated hearsay documents. Robert introduced into evidence America Online billing documents and a summary titled Summary of Time Cindy Bower is on the Internet as an exhibit. ¶ 40. As stated previously, the admission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. K-Mart Corp., 735 So.2d at 975. ¶ 41. Robert asserts that these documents were admissible under M.R.E. 803(6) because the records were kept in the ordinary course of business by America Online and the records were properly authenticated by Robert's testimony. Moreover, the chancellor admitted the documents with the name of the summary changed from Summary of Time Cindy Bower is on the Internet to Summary of Time on the Bower Account. Cindy continued her objection on the basis of hearsay, authentication and the best evidence rules. After much elaboration between the attorneys and the chancellor, the trial court ruled, it was the opinion of the court that the document was admissible evidence and that it went to the weight of the credibility of the witnesses testifying to it and as such the document would be admitted. We disagree with the trial court's determination. ¶ 42. Rule 803(6) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides: (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, unless the source of the information or the method or circumstances or preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. (emphasis added). ¶ 43. Rule 901 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides: (a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what it proponents claims. (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: (1) Testimony of Witness With Knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. (emphasis added) ¶ 44. This Court has explained that a witness was qualified to authenticate the business bank records because he prepared the summary with the help of his bookkeeper, and his testimony reveals that he was a witness with knowledge that the summary was what it claimed to be. Wells v. State, 604 So.2d 271, 275 (Miss. 1992). Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. M.R.E. 801(c). Hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the known exceptions. Clark v. State, 693 So.2d 927, 931 (Miss.1997). This Court has held that only when hearsay evidence qualifies under a `firmly rooted hearsay exception' can it be admitted over a right to confrontation objection by the defendant. Gossett v. State, 660 So.2d 1285, 1296 (Miss.1995). ¶ 45. As Cindy correctly submits, Robert was not a qualified witness. He was not involved in the preparation of the Internet documents, he did not work directly for American Online, nor could he testify to the accuracy of the documents. Therefore, the Internet records were not properly authenticated. ¶ 46. Nevertheless, as stated previously, the court's admission of the documents would be harmless. In order for a case to be reversed on the admission or exclusion of evidence, it must result in prejudice and harm or adversely affect a substantial right of a party. K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d at 983. There was testimony from both Robert and Cindy regarding Cindy's many American Online names and the amounts of time which she spent on the Internet. Robert testified he spent approximately five hours on the Internet under Cindy's user name and of the average fifty-three hours per month on the Internet over the past ten months, Cindy was responsible for the charges to the Internet service. As such, the American Online billing record provided only repetitive evidence of the alleged amount of time spent using the Internet. Therefore, the introduction of such evidence was harmless error, as it did not adversely affect any substantial right of Cindy.