Opinion ID: 1651085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Laboratory Reports.

Text: Over the defendant's objection, the trial court admitted two reports from the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, showing the defendant had tested positive for HIV on two occasions. On appeal, the defendant renews his objections: (1) an inadequate foundation was laid for admission of the reports; and (2) the reports contained inadmissible hearsay. We, like the trial court, find no merit in the defendant's challenges to these exhibits. A. Foundation. Whether the [offering] party has established . . . a proper foundation is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court; reversal is warranted only when there is a clear abuse of discretion. Sechler v. State, 340 N.W.2d 759, 764 (Iowa 1983); accord Duncan v. City of Cedar Rapids, 560 N.W.2d 320, 323 (Iowa 1997). The State introduced the lab reports through the testimony of epidemiologist Randy Mayer, HIV coordinator of the Iowa Department of Public Health. Mayer testified the department is required by law to keep a record of persons who test positive for HIV. See Iowa Code § 141A.6. To ensure the department is aware of who has had a positive HIV test, all laboratories and physicians in Iowa are required to report any positive results directly to the department. Id. § 141A.6. Mayer also testified to the procedure for collecting specimens from persons being tested, and to the fact that a positive test is confirmed by a second test. He said the department contracts with several testing sites across the state to do free HIV testing, and one such site is the Free Medical Clinic in Iowa City. The department also contracts, according to Mayer, with the Hygienic Laboratory to test the specimens collected at the testing sites. Mayer identified the two lab reports at issue in this case as being the defendant's HIV test results from the Hygienic Laboratory. He testified the department has these reports in its possession as part of its statutory recordkeeping responsibility. The reports showed the Free Medical Clinic had collected two samples from the defendant, these samples were sent to the Hygienic Laboratory where they were tested in July 2000, and both test results were positive for HIV. The defendant argues Mayer's testimony was inadequate because Mayer did not conduct the tests, never met or examined Mr. Musser, had no knowledge of the protocol of the tests, or of the method of record keeping. But we do not think these matters are required for proper authentication or identification under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.901. Rule 5.901 provides in pertinent part: 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 its proponent claims. b. Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and 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. .... (7) Public records or reports. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept. Iowa R. Evid. 5.901. The foundation made through Mayer satisfied subparagraphs (1) and (7) of rule 5.901( b ). Mayer testified the exhibits were lab reports showing HIV test results maintained by the department as required by law. This testimony established that the exhibits were what [they were] claimed to be and that they were records from the public office where items of this nature are kept. Iowa R. Evid. 5.901( b )(1), (7); see Spear v. McDermott, 121 N.M. 609, 916 P.2d 228, 233 (App.1996) (All that is necessary is the testimony of a witness who knows that the documents in fact came from the legal custodian of the document.); State v. D'Alo, 649 A.2d 498, 499 (R.I.1994) (holding proper foundation existed for admission of defendant's driving record through testimony of employee of public office where such records are kept). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these exhibits over the defendant's foundation objection. B. Hearsay. Our scope of review is well established: We review the defendant's hearsay claims for errors at law. Hearsay ... must be excluded as evidence at trial unless admitted as an exception or exclusion under the hearsay rule or some other provision. Subject to the requirement of relevance, the district court has no discretion to deny the admission of hearsay if it falls within an exception, or to admit it in the absence of a provision providing for admission. Inadmissible hearsay is considered to be prejudicial to the nonoffering party unless otherwise established. State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6, 18 (Iowa 2006) (citation omitted). 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. Iowa R. Evid. 5.801. Clearly, the lab reports contained hearsay: the test results shown in the reports were conclusions of a lab technician who did not testify, and the results were offered to prove the truth of the matter assertedthat the defendant was HIV positive. See State v. McCurry, 544 N.W.2d 444, 446 (Iowa 1996) (holding DNA reports were hearsay); State ex rel. Buechler v. Vinsand, 318 N.W.2d 208, 210 (Iowa 1982) (holding paternity blood test results were hearsay). Hearsay evidence is not admissible unless some exception allows its admission. Iowa R. Evid. 5.802. One exception is for records of regularly conducted activity, known as the business records exception: A memorandum, report, record or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, 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 the regular practice of that business activity was 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 information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term business as used in this subrule includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit. Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(6) (emphasis added). This exception applies to hearsay falling within its scope even though the declarant is not shown to be unavailable. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.803. We think the business records exception applies to the information contained in the exhibits challenged by the defendant. See Ex parte Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control; In re State v. Doe, 350 S.C. 243, 565 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2002) (approving admission of HIV tests as a business record based on testimony of department-of-health employee). First, the lab report from the Hygienic Laboratory is the type of document encompassed in this exception: it is a record ... of [a] diagno[sis], made at or near the time by ... a person with knowledge. Iowa R. Evid. 5.803. As the witness from the department of public health explained, the Hygienic Laboratory does the actual testing for the presence of HIV and prepares a report showing the results when the testing is completed. The witness also established it was the regular practice of [the laboratory] to make the ... report. Id. These reports are required by law and, according to the witness, all reports showing a positive HIV test are routinely forwarded to the department. Finally, the witness was qualified to give this testimony, as he was an employee of the agency designated by law as the custodian of these reports. We find nothing in the record or the defendant's briefing to indicate a lack of trustworthiness with respect to the Hygienic Laboratory or the method or circumstances of the reports' preparation. The trial court did not err in admitting the lab reports under the business records exception.