Which statement accurately describes the past recollection recorded exception to hearsay?

Which statement accurately describes the past recollection recorded exception to hearsay?

• A. The record must be prepared or adopted by the witness.
• B. The memory must be refreshed solely by reading the writing.
• C. The memory must be introduced by the witness's opponent.
• D. The witness must remember the events at trial.

Answer: (A)

Past recollection recorded lets a writing be read into evidence when the witness once had knowledge of the matter but cannot now recall it well enough to testify fully. For this to work, the writing must have been prepared or adopted by the witness (or at the very least created at or near the time when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory). The witness must also testify that the record accurately reflects what they knew at that time and that, despite reviewing it, they cannot remember the details well enough to testify from memory. When these conditions are met, the writing is admitted as evidence and read aloud to the jury. This is why the statement about preparation or adoption by the witness is correct. The other statements miss key elements: memory refreshed by reading is a separate rule (refreshing memory under Rule 612), not the past recollection recorded; the memory does not have to be introduced by the opponent, and the witness is not required to remember the events at trial.

Past recollection recorded lets a writing be read into evidence when the witness once had knowledge of the matter but cannot now recall it well enough to testify fully. For this to work, the writing must have been prepared or adopted by the witness (or at the very least created at or near the time when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory). The witness must also testify that the record accurately reflects what they knew at that time and that, despite reviewing it, they cannot remember the details well enough to testify from memory. When these conditions are met, the writing is admitted as evidence and read aloud to the jury.

This is why the statement about preparation or adoption by the witness is correct. The other statements miss key elements: memory refreshed by reading is a separate rule (refreshing memory under Rule 612), not the past recollection recorded; the memory does not have to be introduced by the opponent, and the witness is not required to remember the events at trial.