U.S. v. Pfeiffer, 76-1153
| Decision Date | 16 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1153,76-1153 |
| Citation | 539 F.2d 668 |
| Parties | 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 561 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph R. PFEIFFER et al., Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Charles L. Merz, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.
Richard Coughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee; Donald J. Stohr (former U. S. Atty., Barry A. Short, U. S. Atty., effective May 15th), and David M. Rosen, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., on brief.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, LAY and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
The defendant, Joseph R. Pfeiffer, was convicted of possession of goods (12 Goodyear tires valued in excess of $100.00 which had been stolen from a shipment moving in interstate commerce), knowing such goods to have been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. He appeals on two grounds: that the trial court erred (1) in admitting verbal and documentary hearsay concerning the shipment receipt of the tires, and (2) in limiting cross-examination of a government witness. We affirm.
An essential element of the government's proof was that the tires allegedly possessed by the defendant were part of a stolen shipment. The manufacturer's serial numbers which appeared on the tires allegedly possessed by the defendant corresponded with the numbers on tires shipped from the Gadsden, Alabama Goodyear plant to one of five cities during the 44th week of 1975. As part of its proof the government showed that the allotment of tires manufactured that week at the Gadsden, Alabama plant had reached various destinations in the United States and Canada and that the only unaccounted for tires were those sent to the General Motors plant in St. Louis. The truck allegedly carrying the St. Louis tires was stolen from the Superior Forwarding Co. in St. Louis and found empty and abandoned nearby on November 9, 1975, two days after it had left Gadsden, Alabama. The defendant urged at trial that the government failed to prove that the tires in his possession were the same ones shipped from the Alabama plant to St. Louis and subsequently stolen.
Complaint is made of certain rulings concerning the admissibility of the evidence relating to the receipt of tires at the four destinations other than St. Louis. Specifically the defendant objects to the admissibility of the testimony of H. F. Medlin, traffic manager of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. at Gadsden, Alabama. Medlin testified that he had received no notification that the other four plants to which shipments were made during the week in question had not received their shipment of tires. Defendant urges that this is indirect hearsay.
Assuming arguendo that the testimony was erroneously admitted, we fail to see any prejudice to the defense. Subsequent to this testimony the government produced the actual delivery receipts transmitted to Goodyear from those four customers through regular business channels and maintained under the supervision of Medlin in the regular course of business. These records verified the receipt of tires by the other four plants. In addition there was corroborative evidence showing that the tires bearing the serial number in question were shipped on the hijacked truck to St. Louis. The shipping orders found in the truck, a copy of which was maintained in Medlin's file in Alabama, verified that tires bearing the serial number in question were shipped by the Gadsden plant to St. Louis. The shipping orders contained the description of the tires and General Motors' production code.
Defendants assert that these delivery invoices were not properly admitted as business records under Fed.R. of Evid. 803(6) 1 because there was no foundation laid by persons having knowledge of the preparation of the receipts. This claim has no merit. The reason for excluding business records from the hearsay rule is their circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness. It is not necessary under the new federal rules of evidence that the declarant be present if the knowledge of the custodian of the record demonstrates that a document has been prepared and kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity. 2 See 4 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 803(6)(02) (1975). According to Medlin these invoices were delivery receipts which were prepared from the Goodyear bill of lading by the common carrier taking the shipment away from the Gadsden plant. He stated that the carriers got paid on those freight bills, so they had to be correct in the weight and number and pieces, the freight charges, and the bill of lading number shown on that document. The common carriers who prepared the delivery receipts and transmitted them to Goodyear did so in the regular chain of business activity and cannot be called "non-participants." Goodyear relied on these records prepared by other companies. Although Medlin had no actual knowledge about the circumstances surrounding their preparation, he was familiar with these shipping invoices and the same delivery slips were checked by Medlin against Goodyear's bills of lading for accuracy and proper freight payments. Medlin was familiar with all of these procedures and the records demonstrate a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness. 3 Furthermore, even if the persons preparing the receipts were considered non-participants, the trial judge has discretion in admitting the evidence if it otherwise is trustworthy. See Fed.R. of Evid. 803(24) and 804(b)(5). We find no error here.
Cross-examinatio...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson
...reason for excluding business records from the hearsay rule is their circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. United States v. Pfeiffer, 539 F.2d 668 (8th Cir.1976). The business records exception "`contemplates that certain events are regularly recorded as "routine reflections of the ......
-
U.S. v. Garrett
...Church's credibility. While counsel should be given wide latitude in cross-examination, Wallace, 722 F.2d at 416; United States v. Pfeiffer, 539 F.2d 668, 671 (8th Cir.1976), the district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing Garrett from proceeding through the volumes of the Uni......
-
U.S. v. Doe
...U.S. 1213, 105 S.Ct. 1184, 84 L.Ed.2d 331 (1985); United States v. Ullrich, 580 F.2d 765, 771-72 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Pfeiffer, 539 F.2d 668, 671 (8th Cir.1976). Second, Doe claims that the district court should have excluded the sports shop owner's testimony that he "knows" Tau......
-
Wealot v. Armontrout
...of the victim and her husband into issue before the state courts by citing two federal circuit opinions, United States v. Pfeiffer, 539 F.2d 668 (8th Cir.1976) and United States v. Harris, 501 F.2d 1 (9th Cir.1974). In his motion for a new trial and in his appellate brief,7 petitioner cited......
-
Chapter 13-3 Witnesses
...Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Clarke, 192 So. 3d 620, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).[27] U.S. v. Parker, 749 F.2d 628 (11th Cir. 1984); U.S. v. Pfeiffer, 539 F.2d 668 (8th Cir. 1976) ("The reason for excluding business records from the hearsay rule is their circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness. It i......
-
Chapter 13-3 Witnesses
...Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Clarke, 192 So. 3d 620, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).[27] U.S. v. Parker, 749 F.2d 628 (11th Cir. 1984); U.S. v. Pfeiffer, 539 F.2d 668 (8th Cir. 1976) ("The reason for excluding business records from the hearsay rule is their circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness. It i......
-
CHAPTER 8 TRIAL PRESENTATION AND EVIDENCE
...[74] See, e.g. United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 870 (1978). [75] United States v. Pfeiffer, 539 F.2d 668 (8th Cir. 1976) (business records exception not met, admitted under residual exceptions); In re: Japanese Electronic Products, 723 F.2d 238, 3......