No. 22646-8-IIIThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three. Panel Nine.
Filed: February 10, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County. Docket No: 03-1-01659-5. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 11/25/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Tari S Eitzen.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Cece Lana Glenn, Attorney at Law, 1309 W Dean Ave Ste 100, Spokane, WA 99201-2018.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Kevin Michael Korsmo, Attorney at Law, 1100 W Mallon Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-2043.
Andrew J. III Metts, Spokane County Pros Offc, 1100 W Mallon Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0270.
SWEENEY, J.
This is an appeal from a conviction for second degree theft. Earl Pettit challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the court’s decision to admit a store incident report. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS
Earl Pettit took and hid merchandise in his clothes and discarded the packaging in various places throughout the store. Target security guards stopped him after he left the store.
Kelli Salisbury is the security manager. She scanned the bar codes on the stolen items. The register printed a description of each item and its value on that day. Ms. Salisbury entered this information into the store’s theft reporting system.
The State charged Mr. Pettit with second degree theft. And a judge found him guilty.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Pettit contends the trial judge abused her discretion by admitting Target’s incident report.
We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Quincy, 122 Wn. App. 395, 398, 95 P.3d 353 (2004); State v. Kleist, 126 Wn.2d 432, 436, 895 P.2d 398 (1995). The trial court abuses its discretion if the decision is `manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons.’ Quincy, 122 Wn. App. at 399.
The court may admit a business record. RCW 5.45.020.[1] A `custodian or other qualified witness’ must testify to both the identity of the record and the manner in which the record was prepared. RCW 5.45.020 (emphasis added). The statutory language `other qualified witness’ has been interpreted to mean: the person who made the record, the person who regularly has custody of the record as part of his or her employment, or the person who supervises the creation of the record. RCW 5.45.020 (emphasis added); Quincy, 122 Wn.2d at 399; State v. Ben-Neth, 34 Wn. App. 600, 603, 663 P.2d 156 (1983).
The court must find that the record was produced `in the regular course of business.’ RCW 5.45.020. The court must also find, `in [its] opinion,’ that the `sources of information, method and time of preparation’ demonstrate the reliability of the record. RCW 5.45.020; State v. Rainwater, 75 Wn. App. 256, 260, 876 P.2d 979 (1994).
Where the record itself is admissible, testimony regarding the contents of the record is also admissible. State v. Ecklund, 30 Wn. App. 313, 319, 633 P.2d 933 (1981).
Ms. Salisbury identified the incident report and explained its creation. Mr. Pettit argues that the report is inadmissible because the information within the report is inaccurate and uncorroborated. He points out that the description of a CD in the report is misspelled and that the total value indicated for all the merchandise is inaccurate. But computer generated information from a store register receipt under these circumstances has been held reliable. Quincy, 122 Wn.2d at 401; State v. Farrer, 57 Wn. App. 207, 209, 787 P.2d 935 (1990).
The errors here are, in a word, minor. A new calculation shows that the total value of the items was $269.33, still exceeding the $250.00 threshold for second degree theft.
Mr. Pettit also complains that neither the price tags nor the register receipt were introduced into evidence. But Ms. Salisbury explained Target’s pricing policies and the values offered here. Again, this is enough to support the judge’s finding on the values.
The court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence.
Mr. Pettit argues there is insufficient evidence to prove that the value of the items exceeded $250. But his assignment of error assumes the inadmissibility of the store’s incident report which we conclude was admissible. This is also true for his assignment of error to the court’s denial of his motion for arrest of judgment.
We affirm the conviction.
A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
KATO, C.J. and KURTZ, J., Concur.