Opinion ID: 1194882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Admitting Evidence of Bank Records

Text: As stated, defendant testified that he did not try to gain access to Haro's bank account after her death. In rebuttal, and over his objection on grounds of hearsay and violation of the best evidence rule, the prosecution introduced the testimony of a bank executive who produced microfiche records showing that someone tried (without success, for want of the correct personal identification number) to withdraw a total of $420 from Haro's account at two automated teller machines six times between 6:03 and 6:30 a.m. the day after the crimes, shortly before defendant's arrest. The records were entered into evidence. Haro's husband testified that he did not try to gain access to the account with his own card, and that he knew of no other cards other than his and hers that were usable for the account. (14) Defendant renews his contention that the records were hearsay, not within any exception. He styles his claim a violation of his confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, although he only discusses state law. We assume, therefore, that he predicates the former claim on the latter. We review a ruling that a business record was admissible under an exception to the hearsay rules for an abuse of discretion. ( People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 978-979 [39 Cal. Rptr.2d 607, 891 P.2d 153].) There was none here. The executive testified in limine that the information was contained in computer reports that the bank transferred to microfiche. The trial court could reasonably conclude, as it did, that the evidence met the requirements of the hearsay and best evidence rules. With regard to the hearsay rule, a qualified witness would testify that the microfiche was a trustworthy record made in the regular course of business, near when someone made an attempt to access Haro's account. (Evid. Code, § 1201; see also id., § 1271.) As a trustworthy business record stored on microfiche, the evidence satisfied the requirements of an exception to the best evidence rule  i.e., the rule that ordinarily no evidence other than the original of a writing is admissible to prove [its] content ... ( id., § 1500). The exception provides that a microfiched business record is admissible despite the rule contained in Evidence Code section 1500. ( Id., § 1550.) There was no state law error, and defendant's Sixth Amendment claim, predicated on the assertion that there was, also fails to persuade.