Opinion ID: 1494368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Teletype Report Under the Business Record Exception

Text: Bruce next argues that the trial court improperly admitted a computer printout from the National Law Enforcement Teletyping System (NLETS) [32] indicating that the car used in the robbery was registered to Rhonda Bowie. The trial court admitted the printout under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. [33] Under Rule 803(6), the State was required to provide a proper foundation for admission of the record through the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness. [34] Because the State presented the testimony of a police officer who used the teletype service, rather than an NLETS employee, Bruce contends that the foundation for admission of the printout was inadequate. In our view, a police officer who regularly relies on and is familiar with the NLETS teletype system is qualified to provide the requisite foundation for the admission of an NLETS printout under the business record exception. [35] Although an officer who uses these printouts cannot testify in detail about the data entry or record-keeping processes at NLETS, we conclude that the officer could have adequate knowledge of NLETS practices to be a qualified witness within the meaning of D.R.E. 803(6). In this case, however, the officer did not provide a sufficient foundation for the admission of the NLETS report under the business record exception. Indeed, he did not present any foundational testimony concerning the business practices at NLETS. Instead, the officer simply testified that he found NLETS reports to be accurate in the past. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the teletype printout as a business record without the required foundational testimony. Nevertheless, we find that the court's error was harmless. The NLETS record merely identified Rhonda Bowie as the registered owner of the getaway car and implicated Bruce only by means of Bowie's friendship with Bruce's sister. [36] In any event, the State did not have to rely on the teletype evidence to link Bruce to the car because it presented independent evidence that Bruce's fingerprints were on the car and that Bowie was a friend of Bruce's sister. As a consequence, the admission of the NLETS record without proper foundation could not have prejudiced the defense and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [37]