Opinion ID: 1890991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Records Hearsay Exception

Text: Trawick's second claim of error is that the Superior Court erroneously admitted the Maryland commitment documents into evidence, pursuant to the business record exception to the hearsay rule, D.R.E. 803(6), by allowing the testimony of an Assistant State's Attorney from Maryland, who was with the Office of the State's Attorney for Baltimore City. The Assistant State's Attorney from Maryland, Salvatore Fili, testified on behalf of the State at the December 6, 2002 sentencing hearing. Mr. Fili was chief of the felony narcotics division in Baltimore City. Mr. Fili's testimony was offered by the State to provide the foundation for the admission of a Maryland Circuit Court commitment order dated March 10, 1987, under the business records hearsay exception set forth in Delaware Rule of Evidence 803(6). The business records exception to the hearsay rule provides for the admission of: 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 the information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. [7] Pursuant to this rule, the State was required to provide a proper foundation for the Maryland Circuit Court commitment order through the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness. The Superior Court ruled that Fili was not a custodian of the Maryland Circuit Court documents. The issue at the sentencing hearing became whether Fili was an other qualified witness. A qualified witness need not be an employee of the [record-keeping] entity so long as he understands the system. [8] A qualified witness, in addition to his or her familiarity with the record-keeping system, must attest to the following foundational requirements of Rule 803(6): (1) [that] the declarant in the records had knowledge to make accurate statements; (2) that the declarant recorded statements contemporaneously with the actions which were the subject of the reports; (3) that the declarant made the record in the regular course of business activity; and (4) that such records were regularly kept by the business. [9] The Superior Court ruled that Mr. Fili had demonstrated an adequate familiarity with the records and record-keeping process such that he would be a person qualified to authenticate these records for the purposes of the business records exception. We need not decide the issue concerning the admissibility of the Maryland prosecutor's testimony in support of admitting the Maryland Circuit Court commitment records pursuant to the business record exception. [10] Mr. Fili testified as follows: Q. I'm now handing you what's been identified as State Exhibit A for identification. Would you take a look at that and please tell the Court what that is. A. This is a true test copy of the commitment order in the case of Charles Trawick, 287051, 28705102, and 28705103, which was prepared at my request by the clerk of the circuit court for Baltimore City, where the convictions were entered. And it has been certified by the clerk of the court, Mr. Frank M. Conaway, as a true copy from the record in the court. Q. Bringing your attention to Count II of that record, what offense does that show? A. Count II shows possession with the intent to distribute heroin under Maryland Annotated Code, Article 27, Section 286, which is a felony in the State of Maryland, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and/or a $25,000 for a first offense. Q. What was the date of sentence for that charge? A. Date of sentencing in this case was March 10th, 1987. Q. Okay. And that is a true copy of a court record? A. Yes, it is .... The certified copy of the Maryland Court's commitment order was properly admissible into evidence at Trawick's hearing as a public record under Delaware Rule of Evidence 803(8). D.R.E. 803(8) provides a hearsay exception for records, reports, statements, or data compilation in any form of a public agency recording activities or matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law. A certified court record of a conviction is a record from a public agency. It is undisputed that sentencing a defendant is a duty imposed on the courts by law. As a general rule, the proponent of admitting public records into evidence is not required to establish their admissibility through foundation testimony about the way in which the public records were either generated or maintained. [11] A public record can be admitted into evidence as proof of the facts to which it relates without foundation testimony because it will be self-authenticating, if it meets the requirements of D.R.E. 902(4). That rule authorizes the court to treat a certified copy of a public record as properly authenticated by complying with paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) of that rule. In Trawick's case, the copies of the Maryland Circuit Court commitment records were certified domestic public documents under seal, as described in D.R.E. 902(1). The custodian's signature with a statement that he or she has custody of the original, accompanied by a statement that the copy is correct, is sufficient to establish the accuracy of the copy as a substitute for the original. [12] The certified record of Trawick's conviction was properly authenticated under D.R.E. 902(1) and (4). [13] Therefore, the Maryland commitment records were admissible under D.R.E. 803(8), irrespective of any testimony on the subject from the Maryland Assistant State Attorney, Mr. Fili.