ÿWPCA7 :‹y\“Gn.ßcŽߌ€[8 ãlrèH …iC‹9®ލ›Cvï$1Wð8¶ áè$„«ÞUmDB2~eŸeòòÀRt[æè¹J^«ß½Q‘+•öS¸rš6á‰Çy =Ë&šØ÷´*aiƒ—2¤`ÃÝ;†°½sBVSµ1ô3]Jƒ@¹xŠa¹a¦ÔseÞo»f†cJu`c}F) †>š}8ÕR»ïT9*Õ\ÀHÀ…•UùÞ Zœ¦{Ûè´2Èz)93¾Ù¯{ö0¿ƒ&³þÀµ$þ¾¢{ü1¯™£ö¿;Ý)döNë+É:œÇ.{F­ÃµÐª>ߥȷÜb5íB«oè÷U³‡>¨’gö4Û&´q:0qí˜ÙdF:1#_ÄÔV#A>ÁóKþýaœÍÀ‚ÉG›NJàVPeÒE÷œÍæ5…“p¸y³Ù¯7ø&BÞóóÝ(ØÖÁµÈÊóÚå¦ ‚ž›5²‹ÝóEŠE@¾üØÁ=¹ …û¸Ð]( Â*»xéH<‹ï%áô“‚„•æÔ€IqlÅÃD¢ç§ÞïC9ºÅ· …æ’…2{õöãã3×"t\‘xM5êWŸÔÈB„µó6Ï’»ÌšdÌá¤'»@ß+#!ZU N{ %É 0(Ïw@÷47KZ m\s 0—s 0D ÀN H# bk k s s UN‹…Ù±^^ m%UN€*€*€*€*€*€*€*€*€*V Î*Î*Î*Î*Î*Î*Î*Î* B$7˜HP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ EEEÀÀÀlzÁ(A ,~~3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(G(2Η$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¶Ý ƒ Η$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ŠP‡‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›While€we€affirm€the€Court€of€Special€Appealsðð€decision€reversing€RespondentððsÐ ° Ðconvictions€for€homicide€by€motor€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€and€drivingÏunder€the€influence€of€alcohol€on€other€grounds,€we€note€that€Maryland€Code€(1973,€1998ÏRepl.€Vol.,€2000€Supp.)€ðð€10„306€of€the€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€is€notÏapplicable€to€this€case.€€Sections€10„302€ð"ð€10„309€pertain€to€compulsory€chemical€testsÏadministered€by€law€enforcement€personnel€for€the€purpose€of€determining€a€suspectððs€bloodÏalcohol€concentration.€€These€sections€do€not€apply€in€a€case,€such€as€this,€where€the€bloodÐ °   Ðsample€is€taken€by€hospital€personnel€for€the€apparent€purpose€of€medical€treatment.€€òòSeeÐ ° ÐState€v.€Moon,€óó291€Md.€463,€436€A.2d€420€(1981). Ñ  Ñ >Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑØØ- ù- Ý ƒ ­×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›We€point€out€that€the€custodianððs€ð ðcertificationðð€in€this€case€conforms€exactly€to€theÐ ° Ðrequirements€of€the€custodianððs€òòcertificate€óóin€Maryland€Rule€3„510(h),€the€rule€governingÐ ° Ðthe€admission€of€hospital€records€in€civil€actions€in€the€District€Court.€€That€rule€allows€aÏhospital€that€has€been€served€with€a€subpoena€òòduces€tecumóó€for€patient€records€to€deliverÐ ° Ðcopies€of€the€records€to€the€Clerk€of€the€District€Court€with€ð ða€certificate€of€the€custodianÏthat€they€are€the€complete€records€for€the€patient€for€the€period€designated€in€the€subpoenaÏand€that€the€records€are€maintained€in€the€regular€course€of€business€of€the€hospital.ðð€€RuleÏ3„510(h).€€It€would€seem€that,€in€this€case,€the€hospital€records€custodian€simply€followedÏwith€the€wrong€rule.€€òòCf.€óóMaryland€Code€(1996,€1998€Repl.€Vol.,€2000€Supp.)€ðð€10„104€ofÐ °  Ðthe€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€(providing€an€alternative€method€ofÏauthenticating€medical€records€without€the€testimony€of€a€health€care€provider€or€custodianÏin€certain€civil€actions€for€personal€injuries€and€insurance€benefits).(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular {Ý ƒ ­×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€Š¹‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›While€the€usual€method€of€extrinsic€authentication€under€Rule€803(b)(6)€is€by€in„Ð ° Ðcourt€testimony€by€the€records€custodian,€business€records€can€also€sometimes€beÏauthenticated€by€circumstantial€evidence€of€the€manner€of€creation€and€nature€of€theÏdocument€involved.€€òòSee€Attorney€Grievance€¢Commððn£€v.€Keister,€óó327€Md.€56,€74„75,€607Ð ° ÐA.2d€909,€918€(1992);€òòPine€St.€Trading€Corp.€v.€Farrell€Lines,€Inc.,€óó278€Md.€363,€373,€364Ð ° ÐA.2d€1103,€1110€(1976). §Ý ƒ ­×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€Š¹‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Third€Circuit,€in€interpreting€FederalÐ ° ÐRule€of€Evidence€803(6),€the€federal€business€records€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule,€has€alsoÏheld€that,€even€though€a€¢noncustodial£€witness€or€documentary€evidence€may€lay€theÏfoundation€for€admission€of€records,€the€witness€or€document€still€must€attest€to€each€of€theÏfoundational€elements€of€the€rule.€€The€court€noted:ÌÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhile€a€¢noncustodial£€witness€such€as€a€government€agent,€orÏeven€documentary€evidence,€may€be€used€to€lay€the€foundationÏrequired€by€Rule€803(6),€that€witness€or€those€documents€mustÏstill€demonstrate€that€the€records€were€made€contemporaneouslyÏwith€the€act€the€documents€purport€to€record€by€someone€withÏknowledge€of€the€subject€matter,€that€they€were€made€in€theÏregular€course€of€business,€and€that€such€records€were€regularlyÏkept€by€the€business.€.€.€.€Here,€Agent€¢Wolverton£€did€not€purportÏto€have€familiarity€with€the€record„keeping€system€of€the€banks,Ïnor€did€he€attest€to€any€of€the€other€requirements€of€RuleÏ803(6).€€Therefore,€as€proponent€of€the€evidence,€theÏGovernment€has€failed€to€lay€a€proper€foundation€as€required€byÏthe€business€records€exception.Ð ` x` x ÐÌòòUnited€States€v.€¢Pelullo£,€óó964€F.2d€193,€201„02€(3òòrdóó€Cir.€1992). T Ý ƒ ­×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›As€we€reach€this€conclusion€on€the€basis€of€the€plain€meaning€of€the€Maryland€RulesÐ ° Ðand€the€Maryland€common€law€of€evidence,€we€shall€notò ò€ó óaddress€Respondentððs€right€ofÐ ° Ðconfrontation€claim€under€òòU.S.€Const.€óóamend.€VI€and€òòMd.€Decl.€of€Rightsóó€art.€XXI.€€òòSee,Ð ° Ðe.g.,€¢Hillard£€v.€State,€óó286€Md.€145,€150€n.1,€406€A.2d€415,€418€(1979);€òòState€v.€¢Raithel£,€óó285Ð ° ÐMd.€478,€484,€404€A.2d€264,€267€(1979)€(upholding€well„settled€judicial€principle€of€notÏdeciding€constitutional€issues€unnecessarily).Ìà  àGenerally,€hospital€records€may€be€admitted€under€the€business€records€exception€toÏthe€hearsay€rule,€Rule€5„803(b)(6).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€¢Garlick£,€óó313€Md.€209,€216,€220,€545€A.2dÐ °  Ð27,€30,€32€(1988)€(applying€Maryland€Code€(1973,€1998€Repl.€Vol.,€2000€Supp.)€ðð€10„101Ïof€the€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article,€the€statutory€business€records€exception€toÏthe€hearsay€rule€enacted€prior€to€the€adoption€of€Rule€5„803(b)(6)€by€the€Court€of€Appeals).€ÏIn€order€for€hospital€records€to€be€considered€records€of€regularly€conducted€businessÏactivity,€however,€and€therefore€presumptively€reliable€and€trustworthy,€the€records€must€beÏgenerated€as€part€of€the€hospitalððs€regular€course€of€treatment€ð"ð€i.e.,€pathologically€germaneÏto€the€patientððs€care€and€not€developed€for€the€purposes€of€litigation.€€òòSee€id.€óóat€221„23,€545Ð ° ÐA.2d€at€33;€òòJones€v.€State,€óó205€Md.€528,€532,€109€A.2d€732,€734€(1954).Ð ° Ðà  àWe€also€do€not€reach€Respondentððs€argument€that€the€toxicology€report€was€notÏpathologically€germane€to€his€treatment€because€it€was€not€completed€until€several€days€afterÏhe€was€discharged€from€the€hospital€and€only€after€a€request€for€records€from€the€StateððsÏAttorneyððs€Office.€€òòCompare€Moon€v.€State,€óó300€Md.€354,€370„72,€478€A.2d€695,€703„Ð ° Ð04(1982)€(holding€that,€since€reliability€of€blood€test€results€was€questionable€€because€theyÏlacked€the€Petitionerððs€name€and€there€was€a€three„day€delay€between€collection€of€theÏsample€and€testing,€and€since€the€technician€was€available€to€testify,€it€was€error€not€toÏrequire€live€testimony€for€admission)€òòwith€¢Garlick£,€óó313€Md.€at€226,ò ò€ó ó545€A.2d€at€35€(holdingÐ ° Ðthat,€since€laboratory€test€results€had€facial€indicia€of€reliability€and€were€kept€in€the€regularÏcourse€of€treatment,€the€technicianððs€testimony€was€not€required€to€admit€them).€€The€recordÏin€this€case€is€insufficient€for€us€to€determine€whether€the€toxicology€report€wasÏpathologically€germane€to€Respondentððs€treatment€and,€therefore,€reliable.€€MoreÏimportantly,ò ò€ó ówe€do€not€reach€the€issue€of€whether€the€report€is€admissible€as€a€businessÐ °  Ðrecord,€since€we€have€found€that€it€was€error€to€admit€it€in€evidence€as€it€had€not€beenÏproperly€authenticated€either€by€the€cover€letter€or€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Levine. Ý ƒ ­×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€Š¹‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›We€point€out€that€the€custodianððs€ð ðcertificationðð€in€this€case€conforms€exactly€to€theÐ ° Ðrequirements€of€the€custodianððs€òòcertificate€óóin€Maryland€Rule€3„510(h),€the€rule€governingÐ ° Ðthe€admission€of€hospital€records€in€civil€actions€in€the€District€Court.€€That€rule€allows€aÏhospital€that€has€been€served€with€a€subpoena€òòduces€tecumóó€for€patient€records€to€deliverÐ ° Ðcopies€of€the€records€to€the€Clerk€of€the€District€Court€with€ð ða€certificate€of€the€custodianÏthat€they€are€the€complete€records€for€the€patient€for€the€period€designated€in€the€subpoenaÏand€that€the€records€are€maintained€in€the€regular€course€of€business€of€the€hospital.ðð€€RuleÏ3„510(h).€€It€would€seem€that,€in€this€case,€the€hospital€records€custodian€simply€followedÏthe€wrong€rule.€€òòCf.€óóMaryland€Code€(1996,€1998€Repl.€Vol.,€2000€Supp.)€ðð€10„104€of€theÐ °  ÐCourts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€(providing€an€alternative€method€of€authenticatingÏmedical€records€without€the€testimony€of€a€health€care€provider€or€custodian€in€certain€civilÏactions€for€personal€injuries€and€insurance€benefits).(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular L Ý ƒ ­×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€Š¹‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›As€we€reach€this€conclusion€on€the€basis€of€the€plain€meaning€of€the€Maryland€RulesÐ ° Ðand€the€Maryland€common€law€of€evidence,€we€shall€notò ò€ó óaddress€Respondentððs€right€ofÐ ° Ðconfrontation€claim€under€òòU.S.€Const.€óóamend.€VI€and€òòMd.€Decl.€of€Rightsóó€art.€XXI.€€òòSee,Ð ° Ðe.g.,€¢Hillard£€v.€State,€óó286€Md.€145,€150€n.1,€406€A.2d€415,€418€n.1€(1979);€òòState€v.€¢Raithel£,Ð ° Ðóó285€Md.€478,€484,€404€A.2d€264,€267€(1979)€(upholding€well„settled€judicial€principle€ofÐ ° Ðnot€deciding€constitutional€issues€unnecessarily).Ìà  àGenerally,€hospital€records€may€be€admitted€under€the€business€records€exception€toÏthe€hearsay€rule,€Rule€5„803(b)(6).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€¢Garlick£,€óó313€Md.€209,€216,€220,€545€A.2dÐ °  Ð27,€30,€32€(1988)€(applying€Maryland€Code€(1973,€1998€Repl.€Vol.,€2000€Supp.)€ðð€10„101Ïof€the€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article,€the€statutory€business€records€exception€toÏthe€hearsay€rule€enacted€prior€to€the€adoption€of€Rule€5„803(b)(6)€by€the€Court€of€Appeals).€ÏIn€order€for€hospital€records€to€be€considered€records€of€regularly€conducted€businessÏactivity,€however,€and€therefore€presumptively€reliable€and€trustworthy,€the€records€must€beÏgenerated€as€part€of€the€hospitalððs€regular€course€of€treatment€ð"ð€i.e.,€pathologically€germaneÏto€the€patientððs€care€and€not€developed€for€the€purposes€of€litigation.€€òòSee€id.€óóat€221„23,€545Ð ° ÐA.2d€at€33;€òòJones€v.€State,€óó205€Md.€528,€532,€109€A.2d€732,€734€(1954).Ð ° Ðà  àWe€also€do€not€reach€Respondentððs€argument€that€the€toxicology€report€was€notÏpathologically€germane€to€his€treatment€because€it€was€not€completed€until€several€days€afterÏhe€was€discharged€from€the€hospital€and€only€after€a€request€for€records€from€the€StateððsÏAttorneyððs€Office.€€òòCompare€Moon€v.€State,€óó300€Md.€354,€370„72,€478€A.2d€695,€703„Ð ° Ð04(1982)€(holding€that,€since€reliability€of€blood€test€results€was€questionable€€because€theyÏlacked€the€Petitionerððs€name€and€there€was€a€three„day€delay€between€collection€of€theÏsample€and€testing,€and€since€the€technician€was€available€to€testify,€it€was€error€not€toÏrequire€live€testimony€for€admission)€òòwith€¢Garlick£,€óó313€Md.€at€226,€545€A.2d€at€35€(holdingÐ ° Ðthat,€since€laboratory€test€results€had€facial€indicia€of€reliability€and€were€kept€in€the€regularÏcourse€of€treatment,€the€technicianððs€testimony€was€not€required€to€admit€them).€€The€recordÏin€this€case€is€insufficient€for€us€to€determine€whether€the€toxicology€report€wasÏpathologically€germane€to€Respondentððs€treatment€and,€therefore,€reliable.€€MoreÏimportantly,€we€do€not€reach€the€issue€of€whether€the€report€is€admissible€as€a€businessÏrecord,€since€we€have€found€that€it€was€error€to€admit€it€in€evidence€as€it€had€not€beenÏproperly€authenticated€either€by€the€cover€letter€or€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Levine. dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛԀŠP‡‹XXÔÓ  ÓÑ€P¨ÑÑ€À8ÑCircuit€Court€for€Baltimore€CountyÐ ° ÐCriminal€No.€94„4554€ÌÒ<°ÒÓ  ÓÌòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€MARYLANDóóÐ ° ÐÌNo.€16ÌÌSeptember€Term,€2000ÌÌ______________________________________________ÌÌSTATE€OF€MARYLANDÌÌv.ÌÌWILLIAM€¢DUNLOCK£€BRYANTÌÌ______________________________________________ÌÓ  ÓÌà ” àà ì àBell,€C.J.Ìà ” àà ì à¢Eldridge£Ìà ” àà ì àRodowsky*Ìà ” àà ì àRakerÌà ” àà ì àWilnerÌà ” àà ì à¢Cathell£Ìà ” àà ì à¢Harrell£ÌÌÓ  ÓJJ.ÌÌ______________________________________________ÌÌOpinion€by€Raker,€J.ÌÌÌ______________________________________________ÌÓ  ÓÌà ” àà ì àFiled:€€€€November€14,€2000ÌÌÒ°<ÒÔ€ôKÓõ‹ŠP‡ÔññÔ‡&x %õôKÓÔññ*Rodowsky,€J.,€now€retired,€participated€in€the€hearing€and€conference€of€this€case€while€an€active€memberÐ °*&& Ðof€this€Court;€after€being€recññññllññññññalled€pursuant€to€the€Constitution,€Article€IV,€ññññññDññññññSec.€¢3A£,€he€also€participated€inÏthe€deññññññsi==ññññññcision€and€adoption€of€ññññññrthiññññññthis€opinionññññ.ññÌññÔ#†ôKÓõ%&x °#ÔññÌÐ þ-N)* ÐÑP¨Ñâ âÑ  Ñâ âÑ  ÑññññÔ€XÄsXõôKÓÔññññññÔ€ŠP‡‹õôKÓÔññÌÌÓÓà  àWe€granted€the€Stateððs€petition€for€certiorari€in€this€case€primarily€to€determine€theÏrequirements€under€Maryland€Rule€5„902(a)(11)€for€the€admissibility€of€hospital€records€asÏcertified€records€of€regularly€conducted€business€activity€without€the€in„court€testimony€ofÏthe€hospital€records€custodian.€€€We€agree€with€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€that€theÏtoxicology€report€was€not€properly€authenticated,€and€accordingly€we€shall€affirm.Ìà  àRespondent€was€convicted€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Baltimore€County€of€homicide€byÏmotor€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol,€driving€under€the€influence€of€alcohol,Ïnegligent€driving,€driving€at€unreasonable€speed,€and€failure€to€control€speed.€€The€CircuitÏCourt€sentenced€Bryant€to€a€term€of€imprisonment€of€one€year€and€a€fine€of€$1000€forÏhomicide€by€motor€vehicle€and€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol.€€The€trial€courtÏmerged€the€remaining€convictions€for€sentencing€purposes.Ìà  àBryant€noted€a€timely€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals.€€The€intermediate€courtÏreversed€Respondentððs€convictions€for€homicide€by€motor€vehicle€while€under€the€influenceÏof€alcohol€and€driving€under€the€influence€of€alcohol,€òòseeóó€òòBryant€v.€State,óó€129€Md.€App.Ð °  Ð690,€743€A.2d€814€(2000),€holding€that€a€toxicology€report€had€been€improperly€admittedÏin€evidence€under€the€business€records€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule,€Maryland€Rule€5„¼803(b)(6).€€The€Court€of€Special€Appeals€held€that€the€toxicology€report€was€inadmissibleÏon€two€grounds:€first,€that€it€did€not€meet€the€requirements€of€Maryland€Code€(1973,€1998ÏRepl.€Vol.,€2000€Supp.)€ðð€10„306€of€the€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€regardingÏthe€admissibility€of€test€results€without€the€testimony€of€the€technician;€and,€second,€becauseÐ °,(( ÐÑÀ8Ñâ âÑ8€ÄsXXdìXXdì8ÑÑ€ÑØØâ âÑ  ÑÑÀ8Ñâ âÑ8€ÄsXXdìXXdì8ÑÑ€ÑØØâ âÑ  Ñit€was€not€authenticated€in€the€manner€required€by€the€self„authentication€rule,€Rule€5„¼902(a)(11).€€òòSee€Bryant,€óó129€Md.€App.€at€699,€743€A.2d€at€819.€Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àWe€granted€certiorari€to€clarify€the€requirements€of€Rule€5„902(a)(11)€allowing€hospitalÐ @-(, ÐÑÀ8Ñâ âÑ8€ÄsXXdìXXdì8ÑÑ€ÑØØâ âÑ  Ñrecords€to€be€admitted€as€certified€records€of€regularly€conducted€business€activity€without€the€in„¼court€testimony€of€the€hospital€recordsÏcustodian€and€to€reiterate€that€ðð€10„306€is€not€applicable€to€hospital€records€like€those€in€this€case.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ,%| * ÐÑÀ8Ñâ âÑ8€ÄsXXdìXXdì8ÑÑ€ÑØØâ âÑ  Ñà  àAt€approximately€1:30€a.m.€on€August€12,€1994,€Respondent,€William€¢Dunlock£€Bryant,€was€driving€northboundÐ d Ðon€Interstate€95€near€White€Marsh,€along€with€oneÏpassenger,€Gertrude€¢OððBoyle£.€€The€speed€limit€on€that€particular€stretch€of€highway€was€fifty„¼five€miles€per€hour€and€there€were€four€lanes€of€traffic€in€each€direction.€€Respondent€passedÏanother€vehicle€traveling€in€his€lane,€containing€Mark€Williams,€the€driver,€and€BrianÏ¢Shillman£,€a€passenger.€€¢Shillman£€estimated€that€Respondent€was€driving€between€seventy€andÏseventy„five€miles€per€hour.€€Williams€estimated€that€Respondent€was€driving€betweenÏseventy„five€and€eighty€miles€per€hour.€€According€to€¢Shillman£,€approximately€one„half€toÏthree„quarters€of€a€mile€later,€the€tail€lights€of€Respondentððs€car€veered€toward€the€centerÏwall,€and€ñòñthe€car€œñòñcrashed›€in€a€spray€of€debris.Ð d" Ðà  àPolice€Sergeant€¢Denard£€Allen€arrived€at€the€scene€and€found€Respondent€in€his€carÏattempting€to€awaken€¢OððBoyle£.€€Sergeant€Allen€testified€that€there€was€a€strong€odor€ofÏalcohol€coming€from€the€interior€of€the€vehicle,€although€he€could€not€tell€whether€it€wasÏcoming€from€Respondent€or€¢OððBoyle£.€€Sergeant€Allen€asked€Respondent€if€he€had€beenÏdrinking,€and€Respondent€responded€that€he€had€¢had£€a€beer€during€the€day.€€BecauseÏRespondent€was€complaining€of€chest€injuries,€Sergeant€Allen€did€not€ask€him€to€performÏany€field€sobriety€tests.Ìà  àA€paramedic,€Jennifer€Jordan,€arrived€at€the€scene€of€the€accident€and€began€to€careÏfor€Respondent,€who€was€still€seated€in€the€driverððs€seat€of€the€car.€€Paramedics€from€anotherÏambulance€were€attending€to€¢OððBoyle£.€€Jordan€testified€that€Respondent€had€difficultlyÏremembering€the€events€of€the€accident,€that€his€speech€seemed€as€if€he€had€been€drinking,Ïand€that€he€seemed€a€little€bit€slow€to€respond.€€She€noticed€that€his€breath€smelled€likeÏalcohol€and€asked€him€if€he€had€been€drinking.€€Respondent€responded€that€he€had€¢had£€twoÏð ðCalifornia€iced€teasðð€that€evening.Ìà  àRespondent€and€¢OððBoyle£€were€transported€to€the€University€of€Maryland€ShockÏTrauma€Unit.€€A€sample€of€Respondentððs€blood€was€taken€at€3:10€a.m.€for€a€toxicologyÏscreen.€€Respondent€was€treated€and€released€on€the€morning€of€the€accident.€€¢OððBoyle£€diedÏas€a€result€of€her€injuries.Ìà  àOn€December€11,€1998,€Respondent€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Circuit€Court€forÏBaltimore€County€of€homicide€by€motor€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol,Ð d,&& Ðdriving€under€the€influence€of€alcohol,€negligent€driving,€driving€at€unreasonable€speed,€andÏfailure€to€control€speed.€€The€jury€found€Respondent€not€guilty€of€automobile€manslaughter,Ïhomicide€by€motor€vehicle€while€intoxicated,€driving€while€intoxicated,€reckless€driving,€andÏunsafe€lane€change.Ìà  àAt€trial,€the€State€introduced€a€toxicology€report€from€the€University€of€MarylandÏMedical€System.€€The€report€had€Respondentððs€name€on€it,€and€it€indicated€that€the€bloodÏspecimen€had€been€received€on€August€12,€1994€at€3:10€a.m.€and€that€testing€had€beenÏcompleted€on€August€16,€1994€at€2:45€a.m.€€The€toxicology€report€showed€a€blood€alcoholÏconcentration€of€216€milligrams€per€deciliter.€€Attached€to€the€front€of€the€toxicology€reportÏwas€a€cover€letter€signed€by€the€Director€of€Medical€Record€Services€and€the€Custodian€ofÏRecords€for€the€University€of€Maryland€Medical€System,€which€read€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€is€to€certify€that€the€enclosed€medical€records€are€anÏaccurate€reproduction€of€the€medical€records€pertaining€toÏpatient€WILLIAM€BRYANT,€which€are€created€and€keptÏduring€the€normal€course€of€business.€€These€records€are€housedÏin€the€Medical€Record€Services€Department€of€the€University€ofÏMaryland€Medical€System€from€the€time€of€patient€discharge€orÏrelease.€€Both€inpatient€and€outpatient€records€are€housed€in€oneÏmedical€record.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTo€the€best€of€my€knowledge,€these€are€the€complete€medicalÏrecords€of€this€patient.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓDefense€counsel€argued€that€the€custodianððs€statement€was€insufficient€to€form€a€properÏfoundation€for€authentication€as€a€business€record€under€Rule€5„902€and€that€the€documentÏdid€not€contain€sufficient€identifying€information€to€establish€Respondent€as€the€patient€toÐ d,&& Ðwhom€the€report€referred.€€Ìà  àOver€defense€counselððs€objection,€the€trial€court€admitted€the€toxicology€report€as€aÏbusiness€record.€€The€court€found€that€the€cover€letter€from€the€University€of€MarylandÏMedical€System€was€sufficient€authentication€of€the€toxicology€report€and€that€the€testimonyÏof€Dr.€Barry€Levine,€Chief€Toxicologist€for€the€Maryland€Office€of€the€Chief€MedicalÏExaminer,€was€sufficient€to€establish€that€the€report€was€kept€in€the€regular€course€ofÏbusiness,€that€the€toxicology€screen€of€Respondentððs€blood€was€pathologically€germane€toÏtreatment,€and,€thus,€that€the€requirements€of€admissibility€were€established.Ìà  àPetitioner€argues€that€the€custodianððs€certification€of€the€toxicology€report€in€this€case,Ïalong€with€its€contents,€constituted€a€sufficient€evidentiary€foundation€to€authenticate€itÏproperly€as€a€business€record.€€Petitioner€maintains€that€the€custodian€was€qualified€toÏauthenticate€the€contents€of€the€reporñõñt€„„€ñõññöñt€„„€œthatñöññ÷ññöñ€ñöññ÷ññöñ¢ñöññ÷ñthatñ÷ññöñ£ñöñ›€she€òòcould€óóattest€to€the€time€that€the€report€wasÐ d Ðmade€and€had€sufficient€personal€knowledge€of€the€matters€that€it€contained.€€Petitioner€alsoÏmaintains€that€the€report€itself€contains€evidence€that€it€was€timely,€made€by€a€person€withÏknowledge€of€its€matters,€and€kept€consistent€with€the€hospitalððs€regular€course€of€business.Ìà  àRespondent€counters€that€the€report€was€not€adequately€authenticated€with€respect€toÏthe€time€that€it€was€made,€the€person€who€made€it,€and€the€form€of€the€certification€providedÏby€the€hospital€records€custodian.€€He€also€argues€that€the€trial€judgeððs€admission€of€theÏtoxicology€report€in€evidence€without€proper€foundation€or€indicia€of€reliability€denied€himÏhis€right€of€confrontation.Ð d,&& Ðà  àResolution€of€the€issues€presented€in€this€case€requireñøñsñøñ€us€to€consider€two€related€rulesÏof€evidence€ð"ð€Rule€5„803(b)(6)€and€Rule€5„902(a)(11).€€Rule€5„803€sets€forth€severalÏexceptions€to€the€rule€excluding€hearsay€that€do€not€require€the€unavailability€of€theÏ¢declarant£€in€order€for€the€declaration€to€be€admissible.€€Rule€5„803(b)(6)€addresses€theÏbusiness€records€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€That€rule€states€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€following€are€not€excluded€by€the€hearsay€rule,€evenÏthough€the€¢declarant£€is€available€as€a€witness€.€.€.€.€€AÏmemorandum,€report,€record,€or€data€compilation€of€acts,Ïevents,€conditions,€opinions,€or€diagnoses€if€(A)€it€was€made€atÏor€near€the€time€of€the€act,€event,€or€condition,€or€the€renditionÏof€the€diagnosis,€(B)€it€was€made€by€a€person€with€knowledgeÏor€from€information€transmitted€by€a€person€with€knowledge,Ï(C)€it€was€made€and€kept€in€the€course€of€a€regularly€conductedÏbusiness€activity,€and€(D)€the€regular€practice€of€that€businessÏwas€to€make€and€keep€the€memorandum,€report,€record,€or€dataÏcompilation.€€A€record€of€this€kind€may€be€excluded€if€theÏsource€of€information€or€the€method€or€circumstances€of€theÏpreparation€of€the€record€indicate€that€the€information€in€theÏrecord€lacks€trustworthiness.ÓÓÐ ` x` x ÐRule€5„803(b)(6).€The€authenticity€requirements€for€the€admissibility€of€a€business€record€Ïare€set€forth€within€the€rule€as€(A)€through€(D).€€There€are€two€ways€that€the€necessaryÏevidentiary€foundation€for€admitting€business€records€may€be€established:€by€extrinsicÏevidence€(usually€live€witness€testimony)€regarding€the€four€requirements€of€Rule€5„¼803(b)(6)€or€by€ð ðself„authenticationðð€pursuant€to€Rule€5„902(a)(11).€€Ìà  àRule€5„902,€which€was€adopted€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€1994,€sets€out€the€classÏof€records€for€which€extrinsic€evidence€of€authenticity€is€not€a€condition€precedent€toÏadmissibility.€€Rule€5„902€was€modeled€on€a€1986€amendment€to€the€Uniform€Rules€ofÐ d-'' ÐEvidence,€òòsee€òòóó¢Unif£.€R.€¢Evid£.€902(11),€óówhich€added€a€provision€for€the€self„authenticationÐ d Ðof€certified€copies€of€business€records.€€Uniform€Rule€902(11)€was€based€on€the€federalÏstatute€providing€for€the€self„authentication€in€criminal€proceedings€of€certified€copies€ofÏforeign€records€of€regularly€conducted€activity.€€òòSee€óó18€U.S.C.€ðð€3505€(1988);€Lynn€¢McLain£,Ð d  ÐòòSelf„Authentication€of€Certified€Copies€of€Business€Records,€óó24€òòBaltimore€L.€Rev.€óó27,€27„Ð d Ð28,€36„37€(1994).€€It€extended€the€applicability€of€the€certification€by€affidavit€to€domesticÏbusiness€records€in€both€criminal€and€civil€proceedings.€€òòSee€óó¢McLain£,€òòsupra,€óóat€28.€€Rule€5„Ð d  Ð902€was€designed€in€the€interest€of€judicial€economy€to€eliminate€the€need€to€call€foundationÏwitnesses€for€evidence€that€is€so€likely€to€be€authentic€that€extrinsic€evidence€is€unnecessary.€ÏòòSee€id.€óóat€32.Ð d Ðà  à€Rule€5„902(a)(11)€creates€an€alternative€method€for€authenticating€business€recordsÏwithout€requiring€the€live€testimony€of€the€records€custodian.€€It€allows€proof,€byÏcertification,€of€the€same€facts€to€which€a€witness€would€have€been€required€to€testify€inÏcourt€to€lay€the€foundation€for€the€hearsay€exception€at€trial.€€òòSee€id.€óóat€51.€€That€ruleÐ d  Ðprovides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€original€or€duplicate€of€a€record€of€regularly€conductedÏbusiness€activity,€within€the€scope€of€Rule€5„803€(b)ñùñ€ñùñ(6),€whichÏthe€custodian€or€another€qualified€individual€certifies€(A)€wasÏmade,€at€or€near€the€time€of€the€occurrence€of€the€matters€setÏforth,€by€(or€from€information€transmitted€by)€a€person€withÏknowledge€of€those€matters,€(B)€is€made€and€kept€in€the€courseÏof€the€regularly€conducted€business€activity,€and€(C)€was€madeÏand€kept€by€the€regularly€conducted€business€activity€as€ñýñaÏœñýñregular›€practice,€unless€the€sources€of€information€or€theÏmethod€or€circumstances€of€preparation€indicate€a€lack€ofÐ d-'' Ðtrustworthiness€.€.€.€.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓRule€5„902(a)(11).€€ð ðCertificationòò,ððóó€as€that€term€is€employed€in€Rule€5„902€with€respect€toÐ d Ðdomestic€records,€requires€ð ða€written€declaration€under€oath€subject€to€the€penalty€ofÏperjury.ðð€€Rule€5„902(b).€€Proper€certification,€under€Rule€5„902(a)(11),€establishes€a€primaÏfacie€foundation€for€the€business€records€exception.€€òòSee€óó¢McLain£,€òòsupra,€óóat€34.Ð d Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€judge€erred€in€admitting€the€toxicology€report€without€anÏadequate€evidentiary€foundation€to€authenticate€it.€€The€ð ðcertificationðð€attached€to€theÏtoxicology€report€does€not,€on€its€face,€meet€the€requirements€of€Rule€5„902(a)(11).ñúñ׃×ñúññúñ׃×ñúñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€First,Ð d Ðit€is€not€under€oath€subject€to€the€penalty€of€perjury.€€Second,€the€custodian€never€certifiedÏthat€the€report€was€made€at€or€near€the€time€of€the€occurrence€of€the€matters€that€it€sets€forthÏby€a€person€with€knowledge€of€those€matters€or€that€it€was€made€and€kept€by€the€regularlyÏconducted€business€activity€as€a€regular€practice.€€Even€if€Petitioner€is€correct€that€theÏcustodian€of€records€had€sufficient€personal€knowledge€to€certify€the€authenticity€of€theÐ d Ðtoxicology€report,€the€custodian€failed€to€doòò€óóso€in€the€cover€letter€presented.¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€Since€theÐ d Ðfoundational€requirements€of€Rule€5„902(a)(11)€apply€to€the€òòcertification€by€the€custodianóó,Ð d Ðnot€to€evidence€contained€in€the€document€seeking€to€be€admitted,€this€deficiency€is€fatal€toÏany€self„authentication€under€Rule€5„902.Ìà  àFurthermore,€the€toxicology€report€is€ambiguous,€at€best,€with€regard€to€its€timelinessÏand€to€the€personal€knowledge€of€the€person€who€made€the€report.€€The€report€indicates€theÏdate€that€Respondentððs€blood€samples€were€received€and€the€date€that€the€tests€wereÏcompleted,€i.e.,òò€óófour€days€later,€but€there€is€no€indication€on€its€face€of€when€the€report€wasÐ d Ðactually€made.€€In€addition,€the€fact€that€there€appear€to€be€initials€in€the€two€spaces€markedÐ d Ðð ðIDENTIFIED€BYðð€and€ð ðANALYSTðð€is€insufficient€evidence€to€prove€that€the€report€wasÏmade€by€a€person€with€knowledge€of€the€matters€that€it€contains.€€€à  àÐ d Ðà  àOur€inquiry,€however,€does€not€end€with€the€inapplicability€of€Rule€5„902.€€TheÏfailure€of€the€cover€letter€to€establish€a€sufficient€foundation€for€self„authentication€pursuantÏto€Rule€5„902€does€not€exclude€authentication€of€the€report€by€extrinsic€evidence.€€òòSee€óóRuleÐ d Ð803(b)(6).¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€At€trial,€the€State€called€Dr.€Barry€Levine,€Chief€Toxicologist€for€the€Office€ofÐ d  Ðthe€Chief€Medical€Examiner€for€the€State€of€Maryland,€who€is€also€on€the€faculty€of€theÏUniversity€of€Maryland,€to€testify€regarding€the€results€of€the€toxicology€screen.€€WhileÏconceding€that€he€could€not€testify€regarding€pathological€germaneness,€Dr.€Levine€€testifiedÏthat€it€was€routine€to€collect€specimens€for€alcohol€and€drug€screening€in€all€shock€traumaÏcases€in€order€to€determine€possible€intoxication€and€probable€treatment.€€He€also€testifiedÏthat€he€was€familiar€with€the€clinical€laboratory€procedures€of€the€hospital€and€that€the€reportÏwas€made€in€the€regular€course€of€business€of€the€hospital.€€Nonetheless,€Dr.€Levine€òòneveróóÐ d Ðtestified€that€the€report€was€made€at€or€near€the€time€of€the€tests€or€that€it€was€made€by€aÏperson€with€knowledge,€as€Rule€5„803(b)(6)€requires.€€Therefore,€his€testimony€also€wasÏinadequate€to€establish€the€necessary€evidentiary€foundation€to€admit€the€toxicology€report.€Ð d$ ÐAs€a€result,€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€was€correct€in€concluding€that€the€toxicologyÏreport€was€not€properly€authenticated€as€a€business€record€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏadmitting€it.ñüñ¢×ƒ"×ñüññüñ׃×ñüñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€Ð d  Ðà  àThe€State€contends€that,€even€if€the€admission€of€the€toxicology€report€was€error,€itÐ d  Ðwas€harmless€error.€€Once€error€has€been€established€in€a€criminal€case,€the€State€bears€theÏburden€of€proving,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€the€error€did€not€contribute€to€the€guiltyÏverdict€in€any€way.€€òòSee€Dorsey€v.€State,€óó276€Md.€638,€659,€350€A.2d€665,€678€(1976).Ð d  Ðà  àThe€toxicology€report€indicated€that€Respondent€had€a€blood€alcohol€concentrationÏof€216€milligrams€per€deciliter.€€Dr.€Levine€testified€that€a€.216€blood€alcohol€concentrationÏwould€correspond€to€consumption€of€a€minimum€of€nine€standard€drinks€for€an€individualÏof€Respondentððs€size.€€He€also€testified€that,€with€a€.216€blood€alcohol€concentration,€ð ðallÏindividualsðð€would€have€a€ð ðsevere€impairment€due€to€alcohol.ðð€€He€testified€specifically€thatÏð ðall€individuals€are€severely€intoxicated€at€.216"€and€that€such€a€blood€alcohol€level€wouldÏnegatively€effect€judgment€and€decision„making€ability€and€that€vision€and€multitaskingÏability€would€be€impaired.Ìà  àWhile€there€was€other€evidence€that€tended€to€prove€that€the€defendant€wasÏintoxicated€and/or€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€we€cannotÏconcludeòò€óóbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€in€admitting€the€toxicology€report€did€notÐ d  Ðin€any€way€contribute€to€the€verdicts.òò€€See€¢Krauss£€v.€State,€óó322€Md.€376,€587€A.2d€1102Ð d" Ð(1991)€(holding€that€error€in€admitting€the€defendantððs€refusal€to€take€a€¢breathalyzer£€test€wasÏnot€harmless).ÌÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àòòJUDGMENT€OF€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIALÐ d("" ÐAPPEALS€AFFIRMED,€WITH€COSTS.óó