The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
Before offering factual findings in evidence under this exception, a party must provide the opposing party a copy of the findings, or the portion that relates to the controversy. The opposing party may cross-examine under oath the person who prepared a record, statement or factual findings submitted under this exception, or any person furnishing information recorded in the record, statement or findings. If the person is unavailable for cross-examination, the record, statement, or findings may be admitted under this exception unless the court decides the opposing party would be prejudiced unfairly.
If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.
The pendency of an appeal or post-conviction proceeding may be shown but does not affect admissibility.
N. d. R. Evid. 803
Rule 803 was amended, effective 3/1/1990; 3/1/2000; 3/1/2014; 3/1/2016. Rule 803 is based on Fed.R.Ev. 803; 3/1/2019.
The last two sentences in paragraph (8) were derived from Sections 31-09-11 and 31-09-12, NDCC, which were superseded by these rules.
The excepted situations listed in this rule traditionally have been deemed to have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness which render hearsay evidence reliable and admissible, even though the declarant may be available to testify.
Paragraph (22) provides in certain instances, evidence of a previous final judgment comes within a hearsay exception. The paragraph differs from its federal counterpart. The federal exception for pleas of nolo contendere has been deleted as that plea is not used in the state courts of North Dakota. The paragraph also was changed by adding post-conviction proceedings, like appeals, do not affect the admissibility of previous convictions.
It should also be noted these exceptions remove only the hearsay objection to evidence. Evidence of a past conviction sought to be introduced under paragraph (22) must also meet the requirements of N.D.R.Ev. 609.
Rule 803 was amended, effective 3/1/1990, to provide a hearsay exception for a child victim of sexual abuse and is modeled in part after the Colorado and Utah statutes on a child victim's out-of-court statement regarding sexual abuse. Former paragraph (24) was renumbered to paragraph (25) and all other amendments are technical in nature and no substantive change is intended.
Rule 803 was amended, effective3/1/2000, to follow the12/1/1997, federal amendment. The contents of Rule 803(25) are transferred to new Rule 807.
Rule 803 was amended, effective3/1/2014, in response to the12/1/2011, revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
Paragraph (6)(D) was amended, effective 3/1/2014, to allow the foundation for admission of a record of a regularly conducted activity to be established by a certification that complies with Rule 902 (11) or (12).
Paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) were amended, effective 3/1/2016, to specifically place the burden of showing untrustworthiness of a record on the opponent of admission. The change is based on the December 2014 amendment to Fed.R.Ev. 803.
Paragraph (10) was amended, effective 3/1/2016, to follow the December 2013 amendments to Fed.R.Crim.P. 803.The amendment is intended to require a "notice and demand" procedure in criminal cases if the prosecution intends to introduce evidence by certificate.
Paragraph (16) was amended, effective _____________, to limit application of the ancient document exception to documents prepared before January 1, 1998. A document is "prepared" when the statement proffered was recorded in that document. For example, if a hardcopy document is prepared in 1995, and a party seeks to admit a scanned copy of that document, the date of preparation is 1995 even though the scan was made long after that the subsequent scan does not alter the document. The relevant point is the date on which the information is recorded, not when the information is prepared for trial. However, if the content of the document is itself altered after the cut-off date, then the hearsay exception will not apply to statements that were added in the alteration.
Paragraph (16) was amended December 11, 2018, effective 3/1/2019.
SOURCES: Supreme Court Conference Minutes of October 23 and 25, 1989 [Rule 803(24) ]. Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of January 25, 2018, pages 12-13; April 25-26, 2013, pages 18-21; January 31-February, 2013, pages 23-24;9/27/2012, page 22; Rule 803(25), September 24-25, 1998, page 4; April 30-5/1/1998, page 16; Rule 803(24),4/20/1989, pages 6-8;3/24/1988, pages 2-6 and 15-16;12/3/1987, pages 6-7;5/21/1987, pages 6-7; Rule 803(5)(18)(19)(21)(25),12/3/1987, pages 15-16; Rule 803,6/3/1976, page 15; Rule 803(1), (2),1/29/1976, page 19; Rule 803(3),1/29/1976, page 19;10/1/1975, page 7; Rule 803(4), (5),1/29/1976, page 19; Rule 803(6),1/29/1976, page 20; Rule 803(7),1/29/1976, page 20;10/1/1975, page 7; Rule 803(8),1/29/1976, page 21;10/1/1975, page 7; Rule 803(9), (10), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (20), (21),1/29/1976, pages 21-23; Rule 803(11),6/3/1976, page 15;1/29/1976, page 22; Rule 803(19),6/3/1976, page 15;1/29/1976, page 23; Rule 803(22),1/29/1976, pages 23, 24;10/1/1975, page 7; Rule 803(23),1/29/1976, page 24; Rule 803(24),4/8/1976, pages 8a, 9;1/29/1976, page 24. Fed.R.Ev. 803; Rule 803, SBAND proposal.N.D.R.Ev. 609 (Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction); N.D.R.Ev. 807 (Residual Exception); N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 (Pleas); N.D.R.Crim.P. 12 (Pleadings and Pretrial Motions).