CRE 1006

History

(Federal Rule Identical.) COMMITTEE COMMENT This rule will replace Rule 43(g)(5) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘Summaries as Evidence’’, see 16 Colo. Law. 1836 (1987). For article, ‘‘Rule 1006: Admissibility of Summary Evidence’’, see 22 Colo. Law. 35 (1993). The most important considerations in de- termining whether summary charts are ad- missible are whether the summaries are suffi- ciently accurate and nonprejudicial and whether they would be helpful to the jury. Murray v. Just In Case Bus. Lighthouse, 2016 CO 47M, 374 P.3d 443. Trial courts abuse their discretion when they admit summary charts that characterize evi- dence in an argumentative fashion rather than simply organize it in a manner helpful to the trier of fact. Murray v. Just In Case Bus. Light- house, 2016 CO 47M, 374 P.3d 443. Failure by a party to seek discovery of underlying materials does not affect his right to examine and inspect the documents or records from which the summary is prepared. Int’l Tech. Instruments v. Eng’g Measurements, Inc., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. App. 1983); People v. Mc- Donald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). This rule does not require that the records be delivered to the opposing party, provided the records are made available at a reasonable time and place. People v. McDonald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). Prosecution’s use of summary records pur- suant to this rule requires the prosecution to be responsible for the cost of redacting con- fidential information in the underlying volu- minous records so that the records can be avail- able for examination and copying by the defendant. People v. McDonald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). Summary evidence does not violate ‘‘best evidence’’ rule. Metro Nat. Bank v. Parker, 773 P.2d 633 (Colo. App. 1989); Airborne, Inc. v. Denver Air Ctr., Inc., 832 P.2d 1086 (Colo. App. 1992). Evidence admissible under this rule not objectionable on ground that it violates the ‘‘best evidence rule’’. If proper foundation has been established, questions concerning the au- thenticity of the evidence or the credibility of the testimony go to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. Airborne, Inc. v. Denver Air Ctr., Inc., 832 P.2d 1086 (Colo. App. 1992). Rule requires prosecution to be respon- sible for redacting patient names so underly- ing hospital records could be available for examination and copying by the defendant. Here, prosecution did not cause redaction to be done so records could be examined by defen- dant. Accordingly, trial court erred in placing that burden on the defendant. People v. McDon- ald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). By permitting the admission of summaries into evidence, rule relieves the proponent of voluminous evidence from the burden of intro- ducing each part of the voluminous record. However, in order to utilize this rule, the pro- ponent must provide the opposing party an op- portunity to examine the records from which the summaries were taken. If the content of records is such that an opposing party cannot examine them, the records cannot be said to be available. Therefore, if the records can be ex- amined only after redaction of certain portions, then the proponent must be responsible for that process. This is part of the proponent’s burden of making the records available to the opposing party. People v. McDonald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). Trial court properly admitted summary chart that organized relevant facts chrono- logically but abused its discretion in admitting chart that included argument. Murray v. Just In Case Bus. Lighthouse, 2016 CO 47M, 374 P.3d 443. Applied in Airborne, Inc. v. Denver Air Ctr., Inc., 832 P.2d 1086 (Colo. App. 1992).