State v. Cantwell

In determining whether the fingerprint record created in the booking process is exempt from the hearsay rule by the public records exception, the court considered that it was created as part of the usual routine booking process and did not include the exercise of discretion or judgment by the booking officer. State v. Smith, 675 P2d 510 (1984).

Defendant challenged his convictions for second-degree robbery and second-degree theft, which were based on his identification through a forensic analysis of fingerprints found on a Tylenol box at a Walgreen's robbery scene. Following his arrest, Defendant's fingerprints were compared to those found on the box, leading to his identification.  On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court's admission of evidence of county jail fingerprint records and argued the fingerprint records were inadmissible hearsay.  In determining whether the fingerprint record created in the booking process is exempt from the hearsay rule by the public records exception, the Court considered that it was created as part of the usual routine booking process and did not include the exercise of discretion or judgment by the booking officer.  State v. Smith, 675 P2d 510 (1984).  The Court reasoned, because the fingerprint records were routine and of no adversarial matter, the trial court did not err in admitting the record into evidence. Affirmed