936 Order approving revision of comment to Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 803(18); no. 273, Supreme Court Rules; doc. no. 1
Title 225--RULES
OF EVIDENCE[225 PA. CODE ART. VIII] Order Approving Revision of Comment to Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 803(18); No. 273, Supreme Court Rules; Doc. No. 1 [31 Pa.B. 2788] The Committee on Rules of Evidence has prepared a Final Report explaining the revision of the Comment to Pa.R.E. 803 (Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial) Section (18), that was adopted May 16, 2001, effective July 1, 2001. This revision addresses the use of learned treatises by the addition of a citation to Aldridge v. Edmunds, 750 A.2d 292 (Pa. 2000). The Final Report follows the Court's Order.
Order Per Curiam:
Now, this 16th day of May, 2001, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Rules of Evidence; this Recommendation having been submitted without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. 103(a)(3), and a Final Report to be published with this Order:
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that the revision of the Comment to Rules of Evidence 803(18) is hereby approved.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be effective July 1, 2001.
Annex A TITLE 225. RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial.
* * * * * (6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, or conditions, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term ''business'' as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
Comment If offered against a defendant in a criminal case, an entry in a business record may be excluded if its admission would violate the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him or her. See Commonwealth v. McCloud, 457 Pa. 310, 322 A.2d 653 (1974).
* * * * * (18) Learned Treatises [Not Adopted]
Comment * * * * * Regarding the permissible uses of learned treatises under Pennsylvania law, see Aldridge v. Edmunds, 750 A.2d 292 (Pa. 2000).
* * * * * Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 16, 2001 revision of the Comment for paragraph 18 published with the Court's Order at 31 Pa.B. 2789 (June 2, 2001).
FINAL REPORT Revision of the Comment to Pa.R.E. 803(18) Revision of Comment Concerning Learned Treatises On May 16, 2001, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Rules of Evidence, the Supreme Court approved the revision of the Comment to Pa.R.E. 803(18), effective July 1, 2001.
As part of the Committee's ongoing monitoring of the Rules of Evidence, and in response to some inquiries, we reviewed the provisions in F.R.E. 803(18) concerning the admissibility of learned treatises in connection with the Court's decision in Aldridge v. Edmunds. The Committee agreed that adding a cross-reference to Aldridge to the Comment to Rule 803(18) would aid the bench and bar concerning the permissible uses of learned treatises under Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, the following paragraph has been added to the Comment to Section (18) of Rule 803:
Regarding the permissible uses of learned treatises under Pennsylvania law, see Aldridge v. Edmunds, 750 A.2d 292 (Pa. 2000).
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 01-936. Filed for public inspection June 1, 2001, 9:00 a.m.]
