District of Columbia Court of Appeals
In re D.M.C.
January 29, 1986503 A.2d 1280
Summary
The court reversed the commitment order because the sole evidence supporting the finding of habitual truancy was an attendance document that was inadmissible hearsay. The document lacked the foundation required for either the business-records or public-records exception, and authentication of the document did not establish the admissibility of its contents. The court therefore concluded that the order had no factual support.
Holding
- Business-records exception. The attendance-investigation document was not admissible as a business record because the District failed to establish that it was made in the regular course of business, that making such a record was the regular practice of the business, that it was made at or near the relevant events, and that the maker had personal knowledge or received the information from a person acting in the regular course of business with personal knowledge.
- Public-records exception. The attendance-investigation document was not admissible as a public record because the District failed to prove that the recorded absences were within the personal knowledge and observation of the recording official and that the document was prepared pursuant to a legal duty or the nature of the official's office.
Docket No. 84-768
Cited authorities
- D.C. Code § 16-2301
- D.C. Code § 16-2320
- D.C. Code § 14-501
- Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)
- D.C. Code § 31-405
- 28 U.S.C. § 1732
- Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)
Cited by
- Jamar C. Tillman v. United States
- Jamar C. Tillman v. United States
- In re T.C.
- Delores D. Goldsberry, Appellant v. United States, Appellee
- Timothy M. Robinson, Appellant v. United States, Appellee
- In Re DMC
- Delores D. Goldsberry, Appellant v. United States, Appellee
- Lorenzo T. Simpson, Appellant v. United States, Appellee