Opinion ID: 1287416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: boys town police report

Text: Sturzenegger argues that the court erred in sustaining Boys Town's hearsay objection to the Boys Town police report memorializing the Boys Town police investigation of the alleged incident. We agree that the district court erred in excluding the police report, but conclude that Sturzenegger was not prejudiced by the error. Sturzenegger argues that the police report was admissible for several reasons. We agree with his argument that based on the contents of the report and the foundation presented, the report was admissible pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule, [30] although, strictly speaking, Sturzenegger should have offered a redacted copy of the report that excluded any reference to polygraph examinations. [31] [20,21] But an erroneous exclusion of evidence is reversible only if the complaining litigant was prejudiced by the exclusion of such evidence. [32] And an improper exclusion of evidence is ordinarily not prejudicial where substantially similar evidence is admitted without objection. [33] Here, all of the information in the police report was obtained through the investigation of the police officer who testified at trial. That officer, and other witnesses interviewed during the investigation, testified at trial about the events of the investigation that were described in the report, excepting some statements that were excluded on other grounds. With the exception of polygraph-related evidence, Sturzenegger does not complain on appeal about any other excluded statements. In short, the substance of the admissible evidence in the police report came into evidence anyway, through other testimony. Therefore, although the district court erred in excluding the police report, we find that the error was not prejudicial to Sturzenegger.