State v. Acquisto
1983 R.I. LEXIS 1012, 463 A.2d 122 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Business records may be admitted as evidence in a criminal case through the testimony of a custodian or other qualified witness without requiring testimony from every individual involved in the record's creation, adopting the standard of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6).
Facts:
- Edward Acquisto and the victim, Christina, had a romantic relationship that ended approximately five months before the incident.
- On September 27, 1979, at about 6:45 a.m., Acquisto pounded on Christina's apartment door, she let him in under duress, and he forced her to the floor.
- Acquisto then had non-consensual sexual intercourse with Christina.
- At trial, Acquisto presented an alibi defense, claiming he was at home at the time of the assault.
- Acquisto's mother, Mrs. Julia Griffin, and her friend, Mrs. Ann Callahan, testified that Acquisto was at home on the morning of September 27.
- Both Griffin and Callahan testified that the reason they were at home and saw Acquisto was that their employer, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), was on strike that day.
- Sometime after the assault but before the trial, Acquisto made several threatening phone calls to Christina, including a threat to throw acid in her face if she persisted in going to court.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury returned an indictment charging Edward Acquisto with first-degree sexual assault.
- Acquisto's pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury was denied by the Superior Court.
- Acquisto's pre-trial motion challenging the composition of the grand jury was also denied by the trial justice as untimely.
- The case was tried before a jury in the Superior Court.
- During the trial, the court admitted payroll records into evidence over the defendant's objection.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Acquisto of first-degree sexual assault.
- Acquisto (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, arguing against several of the trial court's rulings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are business records admissible in a criminal case when authenticated by a custodian of records, even if the common-law requirement of testimony from every individual involved in the record's creation is not met?
Opinions:
Majority - Weisberger, Justice
Yes, business records are admissible under these circumstances. The court holds that the traditional common-law rule requiring testimony from every person in the chain of a business record's creation is an outdated and impractical standard for criminal cases. Citing criticism from Wigmore and McCormick, the court finds that the common-law rule imposes an unreasonable burden and adds nothing to the reliability of records in the context of modern business practices. The court explicitly abandons the common-law rule and adopts the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), which permits admission if a custodian or other qualified witness testifies that the record was made at or near the time of the event by a person with knowledge and was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity. Applying this newly adopted standard, the payroll vouchers rebutting the alibi witnesses' testimony were properly admitted.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant modernization of Rhode Island's rules of evidence in criminal proceedings. By formally abandoning the archaic common-law business records rule and adopting the federal standard, the court streamlined the process for admitting reliable documentary evidence. This alignment with the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE 803(6)) enhances trial efficiency and predictability for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. The ruling establishes a new, authoritative precedent that simplifies the foundational requirements for business records, making it easier to introduce evidence like payroll or timekeeping documents that are central to many cases.
