Conn. R. Evid. 8-4

As amended through July 1, 2024

Section 8-4 - Admissibility of Business Entries and Photographic Copies: Availability of Declarant Immaterial

(a)Business records admissible. Any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence or event, shall be admissible as evidence of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, if the trial judge finds that it was made in the regular course of any business, and that it was the regular course of the business to make the writing or record at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event or within a reasonable time thereafter.

(b)Witness need not be available. The writing or record shall not be rendered inadmissible by (1) a party's failure to produce as witnesses the person or persons who made the writing or record, or who have personal knowledge of the act, transaction, occurrence or event recorded or (2) the party's failure to show that such persons are unavailable as witnesses. Either of such facts and all other circumstances of the making of the writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect the weight of the evidence, but not to affect its admissibility.

(c)Reproductions admissible. Except as provided in the Freedom of Information Act, as defined in [General Statutes §] 1-200, if any person in the regular course of business has kept or recorded any memorandum, writing, entry, print, representation or combination thereof, of any act, transaction, occurrence or event, and in the regular course of business has caused any or all of them to be recorded, copied or reproduced by any photographic, photostatic, microfilm, microcard, miniature photographic or other process which accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for so reproducing the original, the original may be destroyed in the regular course of business unless its preservation is otherwise required by statute. The reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, shall be as admissible in evidence as the original in any judicial or administrative proceeding, whether the original is in existence or not, and an enlargement or facsimile of the reproduction shall be likewise admissible in evidence if the original reproduction is in existence and available for inspection under direction of court. The introduction of a reproduced record, enlargement or facsimile shall not preclude admission of the original.

(d)Definition. The term 'business' shall include business, profession, occupation and calling of every kind. General Statutes § 52-180.

Conn. Code. Evid. 8-4

Amended May 20, 2015, to take effect 8/1/2015; amended Dec. 14, 2017, to take effect 2/1/2018.

COMMENTARY

Section 8-4 sets forth what is commonly known as the business records or business entries exception to the hearsay rule. Section 8-4 quotes General Statutes § 52-180, which embraces modified versions of the 1927 Model Act for Proof of Business Transactions and the Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as Evidence Act.

Subsection (a) describes the foundational elements a court must find for a business record to qualify under the exception. E.g., River Dock & Pile, Inc. v. O & G Industries, Inc., 219 Conn. 787, 793-94, 595 A.2d 839 (1991); Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Amalgamated Local Union 376, U.A.W., 190 Conn. 371, 383-84, 461 A.2d 442 (1983). The Supreme Court has interpreted § 52-180 to embrace an additional foundational requirement not found in the express terms of the exception: that the source of the information recorded be the entrant's own observations or the observations of an informant who had a business duty to furnish the information to the entrant. E.g., In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 40, 574 A.2d 203 (1990); State v. Milner, 206 Conn. 512, 521, 539 A.2d 80 (1988); Mucci v. LeMonte, 157 Conn. 566, 569, 254 A.2d 879 (1969). If this requirement is not met, "it adds another level of hearsay [to the document] which necessitates a separate exception to the hearsay rule . . . .'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. George J., 280 Conn. 551, 593-94, 910 A. 2d. 931 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1326, 127 S. Ct. 1919, 167 L. Ed. 2d 573 (2007). Business records increasingly are created, stored or produced by computer. Section 8-4 is applicable to electronically stored information, and, properly authenticated, such records are admissible if the elements of Section 8-4(a) have been met. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Carabetta, 55 Conn. App. 369, 376±77, 739 A.2d 301, cert. denied, 251 Conn. 927, 742 A.2d 362 (1999). In addition to satisfying the standard requirements of the business record exception to the hearsay rule, a proponent offering computerized business records will be required to establish that the computer system reliably and accurately produces records or data of the type that is being offered. See generally Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88, 116-18, 956 A.2d 1145 (2008) (computer printout and letter containing results of electricity meter testing); American Oil Co. v. Valenti, 179 Conn. 349, 360-61, 426 A.2d 305 (1979) (computer records of loan account); Silicon Valley Bank v. Miracle Faith World Outreach, Inc., 140 Conn. App. 827, 836-37, 60 A.3d 343 (computer screenshots of loan transaction history), cert. denied, 308 Conn. 930, 64 A.3d 119 (2013); see also State v. Polanco, 69 Conn. App. 169, 186, 797 A.2d 523 (2002) (proponent of computer generated business records required to establish the accuracy and reliability of computer system).The court may also require evidence establishing that the circumstances surrounding the creation and maintenance of the records adequately ensures their trustworthiness and reliability. See Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. D'Agostino, 94 Conn. App. 793, 809-812, 896 A.2d 814, cert. denied, 278 Conn. 919, 901 A.2d 43 (2006).

Computer printouts created in anticipation of litigation are admissible under the business records exception if the underlying computerbased data is produced in the regular course of business and satisfies the requirements of General Statutes § 52-180. See Ninth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Krass, 57 Conn. App. 1, 10-12, 746 A.2d 826, cert. denied, 253 Conn. 918, 755 A.2d 215 (2000).