Opinion ID: 1953479
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bank Account Statements

Text: We next address whether the bank account statements were properly admitted as evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Rule 803(6) excepts from the definition of hearsay: 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 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 information or the method of [or] circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. Where a party seeks to admit business records under this exception that have been transferred from one business to another, the party must establish that the records were integrated into the second business's records and are relied upon in [the] day-to-day operations of the business into which they are subsumed. United States v. Mendel, 746 F.2d 155, 166 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1213, 105 S.Ct. 1184, 84 L.Ed.2d 331 (1985); see also United States v. Doe, 960 F.2d 221, 223 (1st Cir.1992). The trial court heard the following testimony before admitting the account statements: [Counsel:] Do you recognize [these] nine pages? [Sanborn:] Yes, I do. [Counsel:] Can you tell us what [they] are? [Sanborn:] They're copies of Village Bank and Trust account statements in the name of Walter F. Beede d/b/a Jay Howland Realty. [Counsel:] And did you have an opportunity to review the bank statements of Mr. Beede before coming to court today? [Sanborn:] Yes. There was no other evidence of integration. The trial judge overruled the defendant's objection to admission of these account statements and the records were admitted. We agree with the defendant that this testimony was insufficient to establish that LSB had integrated GVB's records and relied upon them. We further note that even if integration had been established, the balance of the foundational requirements of Rule 803(6) were not met. Accordingly, the trial court erred in admitting the account statements under the business records exception, and we can find no other hearsay exception that applies. However, [t]he admission of inadmissible evidence does not always require reversal. State v. Hammell, 155 N.H. 47, 51, 917 A.2d 1267, 1271 (2007). The State argues that even if the account statements were inadmissible hearsay, their admission was harmless. We agree.