Conn. Code Evid. § 8-4

History

COMMENTARY Section 8-4 sets forth what is commonly known as the busi- ness 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 pro - duced 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. Gil- more, 289 Conn. 88, 116–18, 956 A.2d 1145 (2008) (computer printout and letter containing results of electric meter testing); American Oil Co. v. Valenti, 179 Conn. 349, 356, 360–61, 426 A.2d 305 (1979) (computer records of loan account informa - tion); Silicon Valley Bank v. Miracle Faith World Outreach, Inc., 140 Conn. App. 827, 835–37, 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, 185–86, 797 A.2d 523 (2002) (proponent of computer generated business records is required to establish accuracy and reliability of computer system). The court may also require evidence establishing that the circumstances sur- rounding the creation and maintenance of the records ade - quately ensures their trustworthiness and reliability. Cf. Emi- grant Mortgage Co. v. D’Agostino, 94 Conn. App. 793, 809–11, 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 under- lying computer based data are produced in the regular course of business and otherwise satisfy the requirements of § 52- 180. See Ninth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Krass, 57 Conn. App. 1, 11–12, 746 A.2d 826, cert. denied, 253 Conn. 918, 755 A.2d 215 (2000).