State v. Edmonds, 398 P.3d 998

Defendant was convicted of first-degree rape based largely on the victim’s testimony and a 2002 police interview transcript in which the victim disclosed prior abuse consistent with trial testimony.
The 2002 interview was recorded and transcribed; Detective Delehant prepared/signed the transcript but was unavailable to testify at trial.
Detective Clinton, who was present at the 2002 interview, testified about the sheriff’s office’s routine procedures for recording and transcribing interviews but did not personally prepare or review the transcript when it was fresh.
At trial Clinton read a short portion of the 2002 transcript to the jury; defense objected that the transcript was inadmissible hearsay.
The trial court admitted the excerpt under the past recollection recorded exception (OEC 803(5)). On appeal the State conceded OEC 803(5) was inapplicable but argued the excerpt was admissible under the business records exception (OEC 803(6)).
The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred under OEC 803(5) but exercised its discretion to affirm on the alternative OEC 803(6) basis, concluding the record supported that exception and the defense had preserved and litigated trustworthiness objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under OEC 803(5) (past recollection recorded)	State: Clinton’s testimony about regular procedures plus Delehant’s signature established foundation that the transcript had been made/adopted when fresh.	Defendant: OEC 803(5) requires the witness whose memory is lacking (Clinton) to have made or adopted the record when the matter was fresh; Clinton did not.	Court: Reversed the trial court’s OEC 803(5) ruling—State conceded Clinton did not make/adopt the transcript; 803(5) not satisfied.
Admissibility under OEC 803(6) (business records) as alternative ground	State: Transcript was made same day, by an officer with duty to report, pursuant to regular sheriff’s office procedures, and kept in the regular course of business—Clinton was a qualified witness to lay this foundation.	Defendant: Record lacks proof about the transcription process and whether detectives routinely verified transcripts close in time; trustworthiness concerns warranted exclusion.	Court: Affirmed on alternative basis—record met OEC 803(6) foundational requirements; defendant had opportunity to and did challenge trustworthiness, which the trial court considered and rejected.

Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 (right-for-wrong-reason doctrine applied to appellate affirmance)
Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 297 Or 695 (business records exception applied to police records)
State v. Cain, 260 Or App 626 (business records exception requires report by or based on person with duty to report)
State v. Cappelman, 10 Or App 176 (qualified witness, not custodian, can lay foundation for business records)
Holbrook v. Precision Helicopters, Inc., 162 Or App 538 (witness need not have prepared record to qualify to lay foundation)