Mass. R. Evid. 612

As amended through February 29, 2024

Section 612 - Writing or Object Used to Refresh Memory

(a)While Testifying.

(1)General Rule. When a testifying witness's memory is exhausted, the witness's memory may be refreshed, in the presence of the jury, with any writing or other object that permits the witness to further testify from a refreshed memory. The writing or object should not be read from or shown to the jury.

(2)Production and Use.

(A) An adverse party is entitled to production of a writing or object used to refresh the memory of a witness while testifying after it is shown to the witness and before cross-examination, even if it contains information subject to work-product protection.

(B) A party entitled to the production of a writing or object under this section is entitled to examine the writing or so much of it as relates to the case on trial, may cross-examine about it, and may introduce it in evidence to show that it could not or did not aid the witness in any legitimate way.

(b)Before Testifying.

(1)Production. If, before testifying, a witness's memory is refreshed with a writing or object, an adverse party has no absolute right to the production and inspection of the writing or object. The trial judge, however, may, at the request of the adverse party, order production of the writing or object at the trial, hearing, or deposition in which the witness is testifying if it is practicable and the interests of justice so require.

(2)Admissibility. Where the adverse party at trial calls upon an opponent to produce a writing or other object that was used to refresh the witness's memory prior to trial, does so in front of the jury, and receives and examines it, the writing or other object may be offered in evidence by the producing party when necessary to prevent the impression of evasion or concealment, even though it would have been incompetent if it had not been called for and examined.

(3)Suppressed Statement. If, before testifying in a criminal case, a witness's memory is refreshed with a suppressed statement for the purpose of testifying, the judge must conduct a voir dire to establish that the witness has a present recollection of the event that is the subject of the testimony.

Mass. Guid. Evid. 612

This Guide was last amended effective 1/1/2023.

Subsection (a)(1). This subsection is derived from Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 419 Mass. 470, 478-479 (1995) (citing with approval Proposed Mass. R. Evid. 612), and Bendett v. Bendett, 315 Mass. 59, 63 (1943). A witness may use a writing or other object to refresh a failing memory. O'Brien, 419 Mass. at 478. The witness must be experiencing a failure of memory, rather than giving an unexpected response or professing lack of knowledge of the subject. Commonwealth v. Sun, 490 Mass. 196, 214 (2022). The witness's testimony must be the product of present recollection. See Commonwealth v. Hoffer, 375 Mass. 369, 376 (1978). This subsection should not be confused with the doctrine of past recollection recorded.

Subsection (a)(2)(A). This subsection is derived from Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 419 Mass. 470, 478-480 (1995). "[W]hen materials protected by the work product doctrine are used by the examiner to refresh a witness's recollection on the stand, the protection afforded by the work product doctrine is waived and the opponent's attorney is entitled to inspect the writing." Id. at 478. Other Federal and State courts that have addressed this issue have concluded that using "protected material to refresh a witness's recollection on the stand constitutes waiver of that protection." Id. at 479.

Subsection (a)(2)(B). This subsection is taken nearly verbatim from Bendett v. Bendett, 315 Mass. 59, 62-63 (1943) (allowing adverse party to show that writing or object did not or could not have refreshed the memory of the witness).

Subsection (b)(1). This subsection is derived from Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580, 583-584 (1944), citing Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 (1942). This rule has been the subject of considerable criticism. See Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 419 Mass. 470, 479 n.5 (1995) ("Presently, the more controversial issue, and the one on which courts are still somewhat unclear, is whether an adverse party has a right under [Fed. R. Evid.] 612 to inspect protected and privileged documents used by the witness to refresh her recollection prior to testifying."); Commonwealth v. Marsh, 354 Mass. 713, 721-722 (1968) ("It is an artificial distinction to allow inspection of notes used on the stand to refresh recollection and to decline it where the witness inspects his notes just before being called to the stand.").

Subsection (b)(2). This subsection is derived from Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580, 581-584 (1944). The purpose of this rule is to protect the opposing party from the impression of evasion and concealment from a "bold and dramatic demand" by the adverse party-not to make otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible-and should therefore be used sparingly. See Id. at 582-583.

Subsection (b)(3). This subsection is derived from Commonwealth v. Woodbine, 461 Mass. 720, 731 (2012), where the court stated as follows:

"We do not decide today that it is impermissible for a witness to testify concerning an event after his memory has been refreshed by his review, before taking the stand, of material that is suppressed due to violations of a defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. However, before such a witness is permitted to testify, the judge must ensure that the Commonwealth has met its burden of establishing that the witness will testify not from a memory of the suppressed statement, which by definition is not to be placed in evidence, but from an independent memory of the separate event. This requires that the judge conduct a voir dire through which the basis for the witness's assertion that he or she has a present recollection of the separate event may be thoroughly examined."

Section 803(5), Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial: Past Recollection Recorded.; Section 106(b), Doctrine of Completeness: Curative Admissibility..