Evidence Digest: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LAWRENCE LUNGSFORD (1979)

Topic: Commercial Lists (Rule 130, Section 45)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LAWRENCE LUNGSFORD
[167 N.J. Super. 296 (1979) 400 A.2d 843]

Facts:

Defendant was tried before a jury and found guilty of both counts of a two-count indictment charging him with knowing possession of a motor vehicle with an altered serial number.

The State alleged that the vehicle was stolen from one James Wilton of Edison but was unable to produce him at trial to identify the vehicle or testify that it was stolen. So, the State was required to rely on the NATB factory-trace information to establish that the car in defendant's possession when he was arrested was the car reported stolen by Wilton. The NATB is essentially an informational warehouse, a registry for the industry. But the record is devoid of any proof of the reliability of the NATB procedures and therefore of any proper evidential basis for admission of data derived therefrom.

Issue:

Is the NATB procedures for tracing the identification of motor vehicle admissible in evidence?

Held:

NO. The information concerning the NATB procedure was inadequate to permit admissibility. It failed to comply with the rule that Evidence of a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if the compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them.

In addition, the judge was not convinced at  the hearing that the proffer was sufficiently trustworthy, based on the method of compilation and industry reliance. Thus,statements from the compilation are inadmissible to prove the truth of the relevant matter stated.