Criminal Practice – Possession of Stolen Property – Evidence – Hearsay – Business Records Exception – NCIC Database

State v. Sneed. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0347, 20 pp.) (Martha A. Geer, J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court. (Ripley E. Rand, J.) N.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion.

Holding: A police detective’s description of the National Crime Information Center database was sufficient to lay a foundation to admit information from the database into evidence.

No error in defendant’s convictions of robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of stolen property, and misdemeanor fleeing to elude arrest.

After committing an armed robbery and leading police on a car chase, defendant was caught with an unregistered handgun. A police detective testified that he ran the handgun’s serial number through the NCIC database and learned that the gun had been reported stolen in Miami, Florida.

Although he failed to object at trial, defendant contends on appeal that the state failed to lay a proper foundation for the detective’s testimony to be admissible under the business-records exception to the hearsay rule. We review for plain error.

Detective Rhodes described the NCIC database as entries from law enforcement officers used by law enforcement to trace stolen property. Detective Rhodes stated that he ran the serial number of the gun through the NCIC database and found that the gun with that serial number had been reported stolen.

While Detective Rhodes did not explicitly state that the records were kept in the ordinary course of business, defendant does not dispute that the testimony of Detective Rhodes, if he were a qualified witness, was adequate to support that inference. Under State v. Windley, 173 N.C. App. 187, 617 S.E.2d 682 (2005), disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 295, 629 S.E.2d 288, cert. dismissed, 360 N.C. 295, 629 S.E.2d 290 (2006), Detective Rhodes, who used the NCIC database in his regular course of business, was sufficiently qualified to lay the necessary foundation for admission of the NCIC information under N.C. R. Evid. 803(6).

Detective Rhodes’ testimony regarding the NCIC report was not plain error.

Given that the NCIC database testimony was properly admitted, it was not plain error for the trial court to admit evidence of a Florida police report and of a telephone conversation between a Raleigh detective and a Florida detective.

No error.