Legal Opinion

State v. Quincy

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided June 14, 2004No. 52484-4-IPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

—

A computer-generated tally of items stolen from a retailer who uses the same computer system to price goods for sale is admissible as evidence of the value of the stolen goods under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay.

BACKGROUND

Loss prevention personnel at a Fred Meyer store observed Jesse Quincy and two women behaving suspiciously, indiscriminately loading merchandise into a plastic tote in one of the store’s carts. The employees monitored Quincy’s movements throughout the store using closed-circuit television equipment. Eventually, store employees saw Quincy leave…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. BrownWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. BourgeoisWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Cantrill v. American Mail Line, Ltd.Washington Supreme Court · 1953
  4. State v. RainwaterCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
  5. State v. Ben-NethCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1983

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. HowertonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  2. State v. QuincyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  3. Citimortgage v. Paul MoseleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  4. In re Welfare of M.R.Washington Supreme Court · 2022
  5. Patrick White v. Granite FallsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API