State v. Edmonds

Law enforcement records are generally not admissible under the "business records exception" in criminal cases because it supports the conclusion that, under the Oregon Evidence Code, “section [803](6) does not open a back door for evidence excluded by section [803](8)”. United States v. Oates, 560 F2d 45 (2d Cir 1977). United States v. Cain, 615 F2d 380 (5th Cir 1980).

Defendant appealed his conviction of first-degree rape. Defendant assigned error to the Court of Appeals failure to consider his argument under OEC 803(8)(b). On appeal, Defendant argued that the "past recollection recorded" exception did not apply and contended that the Court of Appeals’ application of "preservation rules" was unfair and inconsistent with prior precedent. In response, the State argued that "the bar on admissibility applies only where the hearsay evidence would otherwise be admissible under OEC 803(8)(b), but for the prohibition." Law enforcement records are generally not admissible under the "business records exception" in criminal cases because it supports the conclusion that, under the Oregon Evidence Code, “section [803](6) does not open a back door for evidence excluded by section [803](8)”. United States v. Oates, 560 F2d 45 (2d Cir 1977). United States v. Cain, 615 F2d 380 (5th Cir 1980). The Court held the exception did not apply because legislative history, as well as case law, led to ordinary principles of statutory interpretation that the OEC 803(8) controlled the admission of law enforcement records. Additionally, the Court concluded the error in admitting the inadmissible evidence was not harmless, so Defendant's conviction must be reversed. 

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.