Commonwealth v. Irene, 462 Mass. 600

A taxi driver was robbed at knife-point; the robber was masked and fled after Rodriguez fired at him.
Police located the defendant near the scene with a gunshot wound; no witness could identify him as the robber.
DNA from the robber’s fur-lined hat matched the defendant; the hat was found at the robbery scene.
Defendant testified he was not in a taxi that night and denied involvement; he admitted wearing a hat but not the jacket.
The Commonwealth introduced statements by the fleeing robber and a hospital-record statement that the defendant was in a taxi when shot.
Trial court admitted the hospital-record statement under the business records statute (§ 78); defense challenged admissibility under hospital records (§ 79) and confrontation

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the robber’s statements admissible hearsay exceptions?	Commonwealth contends the remarks were spontaneous utterances/present pain.	Duffly argues the statements are hearsay and inadmissible as substantive proof.	Yes, admissible as spontaneous utterances/present pain.
Was the defendant’s medical-record statement properly admitted under § 78 business records?	Commonwealth argues hospital records fit § 78; broader than § 79.	§ 78 cannot be used to admit hospital medical records; § 79 governs medical records.	No; medical records not admissible under § 78.
Were hospital records § 79 exclusions violated by admission of the statement?	Statement related to treatment/history and should be admitted under § 79.	Statement not germane to treatment/history, thus inadmissible under § 79.	Not admissible under § 79 either.
Did admission of the medical-record statement implicate the confrontation clause?	Statement would implicate confrontation if testimonial.	Confrontation rights violated if testimonial and not cross-examined.	Confrontation issue not reached due to § 78/§ 79 problems; court discussed but did not resolve.
Was the error in admitting the medical records prejudicial?	Admission bolstered case linking defendant to robbery.	Erroneous admission could be prejudicial and undermine verdict.	No reversible prejudice; strong other evidence supported conviction.

Commonwealth v. Nesbitt, 452 Mass. 236 (Mass. 2008) (hearsay exceptions analysis for admissibility)
Commonwealth v. Burgess, 450 Mass. 422 (Mass. 2008) (confrontation clause applicability; hearsay exceptions)
Commonwealth v. Linton, 456 Mass. 534 (Mass. 2010) (confrontation clause limits with medical records)
Commonwealth v. Arrington, 455 Mass. 437 (Mass. 2009) (confrontation clause and medical records context)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 437 Mass. 620 (Mass. 2002) (spontaneous utterance exception standard)
Commonwealth v. Simon, 456 Mass. 280 (Mass. 2010) (sudden-startling circumstances for spontaneous utterance)
Commonwealth v. Cohen, 412 Mass. 375 (Mass. 1992) (present pain as basis for admissibility)
Commonwealth v. Dargon, 457 Mass. 387 (Mass. 2010) (detailed hospital-record admissibility framework §79)
Commonwealth v. Franks, 359 Mass. 577 (Mass. 1971) (medical records treatment focus under §79)
Commonwealth v. Lampron, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 340 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005) (non-testimonial medical record statements under §79)
Commonwealth v. Gogan, 389 Mass. 255 (Mass. 1983) (physician-notes and hospital-record purpose)
Wingate v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 385 Mass. 402 (Mass. 1982) (historical basis for business records §78)
Kelley v. Jordan Marsh Co., 278 Mass. 101 (Mass. 1932) (relationship between §79 and hospital records)