Section 16.19 Past Recollection Recorded

• Library: Evidence 2017

E. (§16.19) Past Recollection Recorded

The exception for past recollection recorded permits the admission of a document when its author testifies that he or she no longer recalls the information recorded in the document, but the document containing the information was prepared at a time when the matter was fresh in the author’s memory and the document accurately recorded the information.

A witness may testify to a transaction or event by reading from a document that satisfies the requirements of the exception for past recollection recorded. S & H Concrete Constr. Co. v. Genova, 384 S.W.2d 816, 820 (Mo. App. W.D. 1964). To qualify the contents of the document for admission under this exception, the witness must testify that the witness:

· has no present recollection or uncertain recollection after reviewing the document;

· prepared the document at or near the time of the transaction or event;

· accurately recorded the transaction or event when the document was prepared; and

· no longer has a present memory of the transaction or event.

State v. Payne, 126 S.W.3d 431, 442 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004). If the document refreshes the witness’s memory, the document is not admitted; the independent recollection is the evidence considered by the jury. Id. In Payne, the defendant wanted to introduce the written statements of a prosecution witness to show that the statement implicated someone other than the defendant. Id. at 441. There was no error by the trial court in refusing to admit the statement because it did not refresh the witness’s memory and the witness was unable to verify its content.

The exception depends for its trustworthiness primarily on the fact that the witness accurately recorded the transaction or event “at the time, or so near the time of the event that, in the circumstances, it could be safely assumed his recollection of the event was sufficiently fresh to enable him to correctly record it.” State v. Bradley, 234 S.W.2d 556, 560 (Mo. 1950). In Bradley, for example, a sheriff was allowed to read from notes of a conversation he had with the defendant while transporting him from Kansas City back to Moberly. The sheriff prepared the notes two days after the trip. The Court held that the notes were written sufficiently near the time of the conversation, and that the conversation during which the defendant made the damaging admissions was sufficiently memorable, that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to conclude that the notes were...