Opinion ID: 170385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of the Cosmosphere's Inventory Records

Text: Ary argues the district court erred by admitting into evidence the Cosmosphere's computer and paper inventory records. This court reviews the district court's receipt of evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Gwathney, 465 F.3d 1133, 1140 (10th Cir.2006). We are especially deferential with respect to rulings on the admission of hearsay evidence. Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., 370 F.3d 1014, 1017 (10th Cir.2004) (quotation 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. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). Hearsay is inadmissible at trial unless it falls into an exception. Fed.R.Evid. 802. Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides an exception to the hearsay rule for business records if they are kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the . . . record. The rationale behind this exception is that business records have a high degree of reliability because businesses have incentives to keep accurate records. Gwathney, 465 F.3d at 1140 (quotation omitted). To satisfy Rule 803(6) the inventory records must (1) have been prepared in the normal course of business; (2) have been made at or near the time of the events recorded; (3) be based on the personal knowledge of the entrant or of a person who had a business duty to transmit the information to the entrant; and (4) indicate the sources, methods and circumstances by which the record was made were trustworthy. Id. at 1141. The proponent of the document must also lay this foundation for its admission. United States v. Samaniego, 187 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir.1999). The inventory records offered by the government are hearsay. They are out-of-court statements offered by the government for the truth of the matter asserted, namely that either the United States Government or the Cosmosphere owned the items sold by Ary. The records were nevertheless properly admitted because the government laid the required foundation for their admission under the business records exception. The government presented the testimony of Stephen Garner, Sharon Olson-Womack, and James Remar who all served as curators at the Cosmosphere. A Cosmosphere curator is responsible for the museum's collection and maintains the database records. These witnesses established that the inventory records were prepared in the normal course of business. Remar provided extensive testimony on the process by which inventory records are created and maintained. Garner was specifically tasked with ensuring the museum's paper records, which were used before the museum switched to a computerized database system, matched the computer database records. He also testified as to the process by which records were made and updated. Testimony was provided to establish that the records were made at or near the time of the event recorded. Remar testified that the inventory records were created as soon as the Cosmosphere took possession of a new artifact. At times, curators were tasked with updating information, and when that information was acquired, it was entered into the database. The government further offered evidence to show the curators had a business duty to create the inventory records. Olson-Womack testified it was her job as a curator to generate the inventory records and Remar explained he was responsible for ensuring that the Cosmosphere's inventory was properly tracked and entered into the database. Rule 803(6) also requires that the source of information or the method by which the records were kept indicate trustworthiness. Gwathney, 465 F.3d at 1141. Although Ary attempts to portray the inventory records as untrustworthy, the record does not support his assertions. Ary points to testimony in which former curators testified about updating the database and their attempts to make it more complete. Although several witnesses testified that the computer database was not 100% complete, no testimony suggested the completed records were inaccurate as to ownership. The government, therefore, met the four elements of the business records exception. Ary also argues the records constitute double hearsay. See Fed. R.Evid. 805. Double hearsay in the context of a business record exists when the record is prepared by an employee with information supplied by another person. Gwathney, 465 F.3d at 1141 (quotation omitted). If information is provided by another person who is an outsider to the business preparing the record, those statements must also fall within a hearsay exception to be admissible. Id; see also Fed.R.Evid. 805 (Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded . . . if each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule. . . .) The essential component of the business records exception is that each actor in the chain of information is under a business duty or compulsion to provide accurate information. United States v. McIntyre, 997 F.2d 687, 699 (10th Cir.1993). If any person in the process is not acting in the regular course of business, then an essential link in the trustworthiness chain fails. . . . 2 McCormick on Evidence § 290 (Kenneth S. Broun, ed., 6th ed.2006); McIntyre, 997 F.2d at 699 (quoting McCormick with approval). Specifically, Ary points to Garner's testimony in which he stated [i]f a record lacked information, we went to research that and then added that back to those records. Garner further testified this process sometimes required him to track down invoices and documentation that came with the artifact when it was purchased. Although Garner relied on outside sources to update the records, those sources were also under a business duty indicating reliability. One who provides a sales invoice is under a business duty to provide accurate information. See United States v. Hines, 564 F.2d 925, 928 (10th Cir.1977) (holding vehicle invoice admissible under business records exception). Therefore no link in the trustworthiness chain was broken. Both the records created by the curators, and the documents upon which they relied, fall into the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Cosmosphere's database records.