Colo. R. Evid. 1006
The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.
(Federal Rule Identical.)
CRE 1006
Committee Comment
This rule will replace Rule 43(g)(5) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Summaries as Evidence", see 16 Colo. Law. 1836 (1987). For article, "Rule 1006: Admissibility of Summary Evidence", see 22 Colo. Law. 35 (1993). Failure by a party to seek discovery of underlying materials does not affect his right to examine and inspect the documents or records from which the summary is prepared. International Tech. Instruments v. Eng'g Measurements, Inc., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. App. 1983); People v. McDonald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). This rule does not require that the records be delivered to the opposing party, provided the records are made available at a reasonable time and place. People v. McDonald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). Prosecution's use of summary records pursuant to this rule requires the prosecution to be responsible for the cost of redacting confidential information in the underlying voluminous records so that the records can be available for examination and copying by the defendant. People v. McDonald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). Summary evidence does not violate "best evidence" rule. Metro Nat. Bank v. Parker, 773 P.2d 633 (Colo. App. 1989); Airborne, Inc. v. Denver Air Center, Inc., 832 P.2d 1086 (Colo. App. 1992). Evidence admissible under this rule not objectionable on ground that it violates the "best evidence rule." If proper foundation has been established, questions concerning the authenticity of the evidence or the credibility of the testimony go to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. Airborne, Inc. v. Denver Air Center, Inc., 832 P.2d 1086 (Colo. App. 1992). Rule requires prosecution to be responsible for redacting patient names so underlying hospital records could be available for examination and copying by the defendant. Here, prosecution did not cause redaction to be done so records could be examined by defendant. Accordingly, trial court erred in placing that burden on the defendant. People v. McDonald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). By permitting the admission of summaries into evidence, rule relieves the proponent of voluminous evidence from the burden of introducing each part of the voluminous record. However, in order to utilize this rule, the proponent must provide the opposing party an opportunity to examine the records from which the summaries were taken. If the content of records is such that an opposing party cannot examine them, the records cannot be said to be available. Therefore, if the records can be examined only after redaction of certain portions, then the proponent must be responsible for that process. This is part of the proponent's burden of making the records available to the opposing party. People v. McDonald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). Applied in Airborne, Inc. v. Denver Air Center, Inc., 832 P.2d 1086 (Colo. App. 1992).