Also known as: FRE 803(5) · Fed. R. Evid. 803(5) · 803(5) · recorded recollection · hearsay exception · past recollection recorded
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hearsay exception permitting a witness to read a record into evidence when the witness once knew the matter but cannot now recall it well enough to testify fully and accurately, the record was made or adopted when the matter was fresh in the witness's memory, and the record accurately reflects the witness's knowledge. The record may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.
Renata Russo testified she could not recall the June 15 spraying schedule or wind direction. She had written a field log entry the evening of the event listing the chemicals used. The court permitted her to read the entry into evidence after she confirmed it accurately reflected her observations at the time.
Rachel Ramirez testified she remembered the night of the fire only vaguely. She had completed an operations log during the event describing alarm codes and supervisor conversations. The court allowed the log to be read into evidence because it was made when the matter remained fresh in her memory.
Rina Rahman testified she could not recall the exact warnings given during a clinical trial meeting. She had written a shift note immediately after the meeting documenting the executive's statements on cardiac risks. The court permitted her to read the note into evidence after she confirmed its accuracy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rebecca Ross testified she could not recall the precise test results from an accredited laboratory. She had made a contemporaneous note of the DNA findings during the analysis. The court allowed her to read the note into evidence to establish the laboratory procedures used.
Riley Rivera testified she could not recall the exact chemical composition details from a prior test. She had recorded the results in a certificate at the time of the analysis. The court permitted her to read the certificate into evidence after confirming it accurately reflected her knowledge.
Ralph Richardson testified he could not recall the details of a prior interview with police. He had written a statement immediately after the interview describing the events. The court allowed him to read the statement into evidence because it was made when the matter was fresh.
The record may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party. The proponent may have the witness read the record into evidence but cannot have the document itself sent to the jury room.
The record must have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness's memory. Courts examine the timing and circumstances of the record's creation to determine whether the witness's recollection remained vivid.
The witness must have made or adopted the record. When two persons divide the functions of observing and recording, both must testify to establish the foundation for the exception.
…statement was inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, it was admissible under a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception for statements against penal interest and that admitting it did not violate the Constitution. We granted certiorari to determine whether the State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the…