Opinion ID: 1059529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission and Sufficiency of Evidence

Text: Over Frank Shop's objection, the trial court received into evidence a form filed by Eastates on August 23, 1979 with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Exhibit 1), and a portion of a Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1979, filed by Ashland Oil, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Exhibit 2). Assuming without deciding that Eastates operated a retail outlet on the premises on July 1, 1979, in order to obtain the protection of the grandfather clause, Crown bore the burden of proof to show that Eastates was a producer or refiner as defined in the Act. [1] A review of the record indicates that these two exhibits constitute the only evidence offered by Crown to prove that Eastates was a producer or refiner.
At trial, Crown offered Exhibit 1 into evidence as a government record under Code § 8.01-390. Frank Shop objected on the grounds that it had not been properly authenticated, it was hearsay, and that it was not a government or public record. Crown responded that the document was properly authenticated and counsel stated, I can give you four reasons why it comes under the hearsay exception. Without awaiting a statement of the four reasons or a response to the objection concerning authentication, the trial court stated, Well, let me just help you out. I'm going to allow it. On appeal, Crown argues that Exhibit 1 was properly authenticated and admissible either under the government records exception pursuant to Code § 8.01-390 or under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.