Reeves v. King, 554 So.2d 1107, 1114 (Ala. 1988); Wilson v. State, 756 P.2d 307, 312 (Alas. 1988); Wallin v. Ins. Co. of North America, 268 Ark. 847, 852 ( 596 S.W.2d 716)(1980); Bolin v. State, 736 So.2d 1160, 1167 (Fla. 1999); People v. Gayton, 293 Ill. App.3d 442, 444 ( 688 N.E.2d 1206)(1997); Bacher v. State, 686 N.E.2d 791, n. 4 (Ind. 1997); State v. Smith, 594 So.2d 467, 476 (La. 1991);Solomon v. Shuell, 435 Mich. 104, 139 ( 457 N.W.2d 669)(1990);Snyder v. Portland Traction Co., 182 Or. 344, 351( 185 P.2d 563) (1947); State v. Bertul, 664 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Utah 1983). See alsoMontgomery v. U.S., 517 A.2d 313, 316 (D.C. 1986) (distinguishing between police reports that are prepared in the anticipation of litigation and those that merely record routine facts that are used primarily for internal administrative purposes).
"Several states have prohibited or strongly disapproved the admission of police reports under the business records exception to the hearsay rule when offered by the state. Reeves v. King, 534 So.2d 1107, 1114 (Ala. 1988); Wilson v. State, 756 P.2d 307, 312 (Alaska App. 1988); Wallin v. Ins. Co. of North America, 268 Ark. 847, 596 S.W.2d 716 (1980); Bolin v. State, 736 So.2d 1160, 1167 (Fla. 1999); People v. Gayton, 293 Ill.App.3d 442, 228 Ill.Dec. 229, 688 N.E.2d 1206 (1997); Bacher v. State, 686 N.E.2d 791, n. 4 (Ind. 1997); State v. Smith, 594 So.2d 467, 476 (La.Ct.App. 1991); Solomon v. Shuell, 435 Mich. 104, 457 N.W.2d 669 (1990); Snyder v. Portland Traction Co., 182 Or. 344, 185 P.2d 563 (1947); State v. Bertul, 664 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Utah 1983). See also Montgomery v. U.S., 517 A.2d 313, 316 (D.C. 1986) (distinguishing between police reports that are prepared in the anticipation of litigation and those that merely record routine facts that are used primarily for internal administrative purposes).
” The court answered yes. The court cited the Illinois decisions of People v. Kotlarz, 193 Ill.2d 272, 250 Ill.Dec. 437, 738 N.E.2d 906 (2000), and People v. Gayton, 293 Ill.App.3d 442, 228 Ill.Dec. 229, 688 N.E.2d 1206 (1997), but found neither case directly on point. After reviewing foreign authorities and a treatise on criminal law, the court convicted defendants on counts I and III despite Abbott's having “received the benefit of all of the work being performed that it paid for.”