The opinion
P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice, concurring in part; dissenting in part. I disagree with the majority when they státe the appellant failed to object to the testimony on the ground that the merchandising manager was not an “other qualified witness.” My review of the record reveals otherwise. Appellant’s objection was raised as follows:
Mr. Owen: Under Rule 803 of the Rule of Evidence, I think the cases have said that the business records themselves must be presented to the court by the custodian. I don’t think Mr. Tesson is that person, even though the rule can be somewhat of a relaxed statement. If a witness cannot vouch to several things of Rule 803, that entry must be excluded. He must have knowledge of the method by which they keep those business records. Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule 803 to authorize introduction of these memos.
THE COURT: I’m going to let him testify. I’ll note your objections, save your exceptions.
It is obvious to me that the appellant’s objection went beyond the ground that the manager was not the custodian of records. A rational mind could conclude after reading the record that the objection went to the testimony of Mr. Tesson as an “other qualified witness.”
However, I believe the trial court was correct in overruling the current objection because Ark. Unif. R. Evid. 803 (6) makes the testimony admissible “if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source ofinformation or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.” (emphasis added). In my view, the lack of trustworthiness was not shown and the majority is in error in their reasoning on this point.