Opinion ID: 1887352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fingerprint Card from 2004

Text: Next, we address the defendant's argument that the 2004 fingerprint card was inadmissible hearsay. At trial, the State introduced the fingerprint card through the testimony of Brian Last, a Manchester police officer assigned to the booking department. The trial court admitted the fingerprint card under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See N.H. R. Ev. 803(6). The defendant argues that the State failed to lay the proper foundation that the fingerprint card had been created and kept in the ordinary course of business or that it was the regular practice of the police department to create such fingerprint cards. The defendant contends that the fingerprint card is inadmissible because Officer Last testified that the first time he saw the 2004 fingerprint card was at trial. Rule 803(6) requires that the proponent of the document produce the custodian of the record, or another qualified witness, to testify about the identity and mode of preparation of the proffered document, and to testify that it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the transaction recorded. State v. Wall, 154 N.H. 237, 242, 910 A.2d 1253 (2006). Verification of the authenticity, regularity and correctness of such records by the official having them in charge, or by another qualified witness, constitutes the proper foundation for admission of the proffered record. Id. (quotations omitted). The `qualified witness' required by Rule 803(6) need only be someone who understands the system of how the document was made, and need not have participated in the document's creation or know who created it. Id. at 244, 910 A.2d 1253. The admissibility of evidence is generally within the discretion of the trial court, and we will uphold its rulings unless the exercise of its discretion is unsustainable. Murray v. Developmental Servs. of Sullivan County, 149 N.H. 264, 267, 818 A.2d 302 (2003). Unless the defendant establishes that such a ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case, we will not disturb it. Id. The defendant has not met this burden. Although Officer Last testified that he was not keeper of the records, he later said that as a booking officer he fully understood the system of how the fingerprint cards were created. Wall, 154 N.H. at 244, 910 A.2d 1253. He testified that he was familiar with the process of the record-keeping and had personal knowledge of the filing system that stored the fingerprint cards. He then described how the cards were created. He also testified that he had been involved in the creation, storage and retrieval of the fingerprint cards. Officer Last also testified that fingerprint cards were records the department kept in the normal course of business. Wall, 154 N.H. at 242, 910 A.2d 1253. He explained that the 2004 fingerprint card was on the same form that is the standardized form used by the Manchester Police Department. He then testified that the fingerprint card belonged to the defendant, relying upon information on the card, including the defendant's name and signature. Because Officer Last testified as to the regularity of the creation of the fingerprint cards, as well as the fact that the fingerprint card in issue was of the same type that is usually created when a defendant is booked, he established the proper foundation that the card was created and maintained in the regular course of business under Rule 803(6). The defendant argues that because fingerprint cards are not created every time a defendant is arrested and booked, they are not business records within the meaning of Rule 803(6). This argument fails, however, because Officer Last testified that it is the Manchester Police Department's protocol that defendants be fingerprinted and photographed when they are booked. Although Officer Last testified that [a] lot of officers will not create a second fingerprint card when one already exists, he also testified the fingerprint cards are created [m]ost times. The State need not show that the cards are always created upon every arrest, but that they are created in the regular course of business. Officer Last's testimony that it was the regular practice of the Manchester Police Department to fingerprint and photograph defendants upon their first arrest was sufficient to support the trial court's decision to admit the card. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by admitting the 2004 fingerprint card.