In another interesting evidentiary based case, the Fourth Department in People v Manges, 2009 NY Slip Op 08258 (4th Dept. 2009) evaluated the “contemporaneous” and “business duty to enter the information” prongs of the business record rule. As you can see, the People failed miserably in their marshaling of the evidence to prove pivotal elements of the crimes of felony possession of a forged instrument and attempted grand larceny.
“We agree with defendant that County Court erred in admitting in evidence a printout of electronic data that was displayed on a computer screen when defendant presented a check, the allegedly forged instrument, to a bank teller. The People failed to establish that the printout falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]), which applies here (see CPL 60.10). The People presented no evidence that the data displayed on the computer screen, resulting in the printout, was entered in the regular course of business at the time of the transaction (see CPLR 4518 [a]). Indeed, the bank teller who identified the computer screen printout testified that “anyone [at the bank] can sit down at a computer and enter information.” Because the computer screen printout was the only evidence establishing the identity of the purported true account owner upon which the check was drawn, we conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction.”
