information or the method, purpose or circumstances of
preparation indicate that it is not trustworthy.
In Mahoney v. Minsky, 39 N.J. 208, 218 (1963),
Justice Francis set forth the underlying rationale for the
admissibility of business records:
... [R]ecords which are properly shown to have been kept
as required normally possess a circumstantial probability
of trustworthiness, and therefore ought to be received
into evidence unless the trial court, after examining them
and hearing the manner of their preparation explained,
entertains serious doubt as to whether they are
dependable or worthy of confidence.
The rule is premised on indicia of reliability, see also
Matter of C.A., 146 N.J. 71, 98 (1996), so much so that
it satisfies the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth
Amendment. State in Interest of J.H., 244 N.J. Super. 207,
215 (App. Div. 1990).
Three conditions must be met for admissibility:First, the writing must be made in the regular course of
business. Second, it must be prepared within a short time
of the act, condition or event being described. Finally,
the source of the information and the method and
circumstances of the preparation of the writing must
justify allowing it into evidence. [State v. Matulewicz,
101 N.J. 27, 29 (1985)].
The trial court should examine the proffered records
and hear the manner of their preparation explained before
determining whether they are trustworthy or there are
serious doubts about their dependability. Id. at 29-30.
Thus, an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing must be conducted to
determine whether all criteria for admission are met. See
State v. Moore, 158 N.J. Super 68 (App. Div. 1978).
In Matulewicz, the Appellate Division had reversed
the defendant’s conviction because a report of a forensic
chemist concerning a controlled dangerous substance
had been admitted over defendant’s objection. The
Supreme Court modified the Appellate Division’s
opinion by holding that evidence that the chemist was an
employee of the State was insufficient to support a
finding that the evidence was inadmissible due to
underlying bias in preparation of the report and
remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. State v.
Matulewicz, supra. In State v. Hollander, 201 N.J. Super.
453 (App. Div. 1985), certif. denied, 101 N.J. 335
(1985), the court held that a police memorandum was
not admissible under the business records exception to
indicate whether the victim’s vehicle had been locked
prior to impoundment.“Included statements” within a business record may
be inadmissible. See also Matter of C.A., 146 N.J. at 98
(portion of police report containing account of rape
victim’s complaint not admissible under N.J.R.E.
803(c)(6); State v. Taylor, 46 N.J. 316, cert. denied, 385
U.S. 855 (1966) (medical records containing victim’s
identification of attackers were inadmissible); Gilligan v.
International Paper Co., 24 N.J. 230 (1957) (hospital
records were inadmissible to establish manner and place
of personal injury); State v. McGee, 131 N.J. Super. 292
(App. Div. 1974) (NCIC printout inadmissible to show
that weapon was stolen); Sas v. Strelecki, 110 N.J. Super.
14 (App. Div. 1970) (statements of witnesses contained
in police accident report were inadmissible); Rogalski v.
Plymouth Homes, Inc., 100 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 52 N.J. 167 (1968) (portion of police report
containing declaration by witness as to cause of
automobile accident was inadmissible).Computerized records generally have sufficient
reliability for admission under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6), and
there are no special evidentiary requirements for their
admission. See also Hahneman Univ. Hosp. v. Dudnick,
292 N.J. Super. 11, 15 (App. Div. 1996); State v. Swed,
255 N.J. Super. 228, 236-39 (App. Div. 1992).The courts have endorsed the admission of hospital
records as business entries. In State v. Biddle, 150 N.J.
Super. 180 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 542
(1977). The Appellate Division upheld the admission,
as business entries, of hospital records of the victim that
showed the treatment rendered, his progress in
recuperation, his medical records, X-ray reports and the
resume, by the attending physician, of the victim’s
progress during his entire stay at the hospital. The court
ruled that these records were made and maintained in the
ordinary course of business and were properly introduced
through the testimony of the custodian of the records.
150 N.J. Super. at 183-84.Similarly, in State v. Martorelli, 136 N.J. Super. 449
(App. Div. 1975), certif. denied, 69 N.J. 445 (1976), a
hospital report of a blood test, performed on the
defendant, was held to have been properly admitted into
evidence as a business record. The Martorelli court stated
that personal knowledge of the entrant-declarant was not
required for included hearsay if the document was
admissible under former Evid. R. 63(13). The only
requirement was that the source of the included hearsay
be reasonably reliable. Opinion may be included in the