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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT