ILNews

Ephedrine database allowable under business record hearsay exception

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday that a National Precursor Log Exchange report documenting the purchases of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine by a defendant are allowed into evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule.

In Jeffrey Embrey v. State of Indiana, 82A01-1211-CR-494, Jeffrey Embrey was charged with and convicted of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class C felony neglect of a dependent and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance after U.S. Marshal’s Fugitive Task Force executed a warrant on a person believed to be living where Embrey lived. The officers found evidence of meth manufacturing and that Embrey and his child lived in the home.

Indiana law requires that retailers selling non-prescription ephedrine and pseudoephedrine electronically submit a record of all sales of products containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to the NPLEx as part of the retailer’s regularly conducted business activity. The report introduced at Embrey’s trial showed all his purchases of the drugs in the month prior to his arrest and noted that he had been refused sales several times.

The computerized NPLEx database is maintained by Appriss, Inc. Embrey argued that the NPLEx report shouldn’t have been admitted because James Acquisto, the custodian of records for Appriss, didn’t have firsthand knowledge of the recorded transactions.

“We conclude that the NPLEx report is imbued with an independent indicia of trustworthiness, and, as such, qualifies as a business record,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the court. “The information contained in the NPLEx report was submitted to the NPLEx database in the course of the retailers’ regular business activity at the time of the purchase or attempted purchase by employees of the retailers who had firsthand knowledge of the transactions. These submissions were made by individuals who, in the routine course of their employment, had a duty to accurately report the information and could be held criminally liable for a knowing or intentional failure to make an accurate report.”

“Because the individuals submitting the information had both firsthand knowledge of the purchases or attempted purchases as well as a duty to accurately report the purchases or attempted purchases, we conclude that Acquisto, as custodian of the records, was not required to have firsthand knowledge of the purchases or attempted purchases,” he continued.

The judges also found sufficient evidence supported that the child found in the home by the officers was Embrey’s child and affirmed his neglect of a dependent conviction.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • COA rewrites law
    Here we go again, the court of appeals, thinks, that they have the right to re write the law, to suit their fancy. Heresay is heresay, regardless of how reliable the source. Unless there is first hand knowledge, it is heresay and if heresay is inadmissable in one case it is inadmissable in all cases. But what are you going to do? The supreme court rules a law is unconstitutional, then later says it is constitutional. Then, you have justice scalia, saying, it is okay to execute an innocent person. I wonder how many people think he would say that if he was the innocent person facing execution!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT