State v. Britt

The business records exception applies when a medical professional testifies to “ordinary diagnostic findings customarily based on objective data,” despite not being the original author. Streight v. Conroy, 279 Or 289, 294-95 (1977).

Appellant appealed his judgment of conviction of second-degree assault, raising three assignments of error. In his first assignment, the appellant argued that the trial court erred in allowing a nurse practitioner to testify to the observations and conclusions reached by the radiologist. In his second assignment, appellant argued the records were out-of-court statements that do not fit under a recognized hearsay exception or, alternatively, they violated his confrontation rights. Finally, in his third assignment, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was legally insufficient to meet the “serious physical injury” element of the offense. The court held that the business records exception applied because the nurse practitioner was testifying to “ordinary diagnostic findings customarily based on objective data” and not speculative diagnostic opinions. Streight v. Conroy, 279 Or 289, 294-95 (1977). Further, the court held that there was no confrontation issue because the records at issue were not “hearsay” statements under State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816 (2013). Finally, the court held that a rational jury could find that the victim suffered protracted impairment of his health from the charged assault. AFFIRMED.