United States v. Hayes

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988 · Evidence

861 F.2d 1225 (10th Cir. 1988)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFed. R. Evid. 803(6)business recordscomputer data compilationstrustworthinessIRS recordsFed. R. Evid. 803(8)Oates

Facts

Hayes filed individual income tax returns for 1978, 1979, and 1980, had income in 1981, but did not file a 1981 return. IRS tax examiner Dorothy Vest, the custodian of the records, searched Hayes's tax records and obtained Certificates of Assessments and Payments showing that no 1981 return had been filed; she testified that the records were kept in the ordinary course of business. Hayes challenged the records as unreliable based on general evidence of IRS recordkeeping problems, but the trial court admitted them under Rule 803(6). Hayes also sought severance so he could testify on count I about reliance on tax advisers while remaining silent on count II, but the motion was denied, and he later admitted on cross-examination that he had not filed for 1981.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in admitting IRS computer data evidence showing Hayes failed to file a 1981 return under Rule 803(6), despite Hayes's claim that the records were untrustworthy and barred by the rationale of United States v. Oates. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance where Hayes wanted to testify on one count and remain silent on the other.

Rule

Computer data compilations may be admitted as business records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) if a proper foundation is laid by a custodian or qualified witness showing they were kept in the regular course of business and it was the regular practice to keep them, unless the source of information or method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The rationale of Oates does not require exclusion of documents properly admitted under Rule 803(6) when the authoring officer or investigator testifies and is subject to cross-examination. On severance, no need for separate trials exists unless the defendant makes a convincing showing that he has both important testimony to give on one count and a strong need to refrain from testifying on the other, sufficient to permit the court to weigh prejudice against judicial economy.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal prosecution in Denver, the government offers a state revenue agency computer printout showing that Noah Mercer did not submit a wage-report form for 2022. Agency records custodian Elena Park testifies that she retrieved the printout from the agency database, that the database is maintained in the ordinary course of the agency's operations, and that keeping such records is a regular practice of the office.

Is the printout most likely admissible under the doctrine applied by the court?

Explanation. Computer data compilations may be admitted as business records under Rule 803(6) when a custodian or other qualified witness authenticates them and shows they were kept in the ordinary course of business as a regular practice. The majority treated that foundation as sufficient unless the opponent shows lack of trustworthiness. It did not require proof under Rule 803(10), and it did not require testimony from every data entrant.