Opinion ID: 1688754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: the lower court erred in allowing into evidence the testimony of state witness, dean carmichael, concerning the business records and loss of junior food stores, inc., a mississippi corporation, d/b/a super stop.

Text: Dean Carmichael, area manager for Super Stop, Inc., testified for the purpose of establishing the amount of money taken from the store on December 4, 1982. He stated that a report is made daily to show the sales for that date, any disbursements, and the amount of cash on hand at the end of the day, and that each store starts the day with $400.00 in cash. The total sales, according to him, on December 4, of gas and merchandise were $628.90, and $58.14 in money orders were sold. These amounts combined with the $400.00 beginning figure, aggregate $1,107.31 cash on hand. However, there was only $797.42 after the robbery, which showed that $309.89 was missing. Carmichael testified from records, which were prepared by several different Super Stop employees. He testified that they were regularly-kept records of the Super Stop over which he had supervision and control. The records were marked for identification, but were not admitted into evidence. The record seems to indicate that appellant's counsel never objected to the documents being introduced (R. 1744), which, in the least, would have amounted to a waiver of the introduction. The ruling of the court follows: BY THE COURT: Well, my understanding of what happened here is that this Exhibit K has now been identified as the record that the witness has testified about. It is hearsay and the question is whether or not it is an exception to the hearsay rule. I've ruled that the witness may testify from it and it's your wish it becomes evidence, but the reason for that is that he testified that in his position as manager or area manager that he was in control or the custodian of those records. He's identified it and how it was prepared. He stated that it was made in the regular course of business, made at regular intervals at or near the time that the content of the record came into being, that is, daily. And, because of that and because of the inherent reliability of this type evidence being systematically made in the ordinary course of business and this man being responsible for them, I rule that it is an exception to the hearsay rule irrespective of the fact of whether he actually made the notations or not since he is custodian and they are in his charge. So, your record, your obligations, your citations are protected, Mr. Barry, but the objection is overruled. Anything else outside the presence of the jury? In Ross v. Miller, 441 So.2d 541, 542 (Miss. 1983), the Court, in discussing the admissibility of records kept in the normal course of business, said: In Grenada Cotton Compress Co. v. Atkinson, 94 Miss. 93, 47 So. 644 (1908), this Court held business records admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. See also King v. State ex rel. Murdock Acceptance Corp., 222 So.2d 393 (Miss. 1969). In Grenada, supra, we held business records admissible even though some of the witnesses testifying did not make the entries, and did not have personal knowledge of the matters about which their testimony was given, but relied upon the books for their evidence. Id. 94 Miss. at 100, 47 So. at 646. In holding that the records should be admitted we approved the treatise which states: The conclusion is, that where an entry is made by one person in the regular course of business, recording an oral or written report, made to him by one or more other persons in the regular course of business, of a transaction lying in the personal knowledge of the latter, there is no objection to receiving that entry under the present exception, provided the practical inconvenience of producing on the stand the numerous persons thus concerned would in the particular case outweigh the probable utility of doing so. [Wigmore on Evidence, § 1530]. 441 So.2d at 542. The trial judge determines the admissibility of evidence in his sound discretion, and, unless he abuses that discretion to the extent that it is prejudicial to the accused, his ruling will not be reversed. We are of the opinion that the lower court did not commit error in admitting this evidence.