Opinion
No. 51107-6-I.
Filed: March 22, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No. 02-1-04202-0. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 09/09/2002. Judge signing: Hon. Anthony P Wartnik.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Christopher Gibson, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Corinn Jo Bohn, King Co Courthouse, W554, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2385.
Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Brian Cush was arrested after he participated in the sale of cocaine to an undercover police officer. Cush was later charged with and convicted of delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop. He now contends that the school bus route stop enhancement should be stricken because the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony regarding the location of school bus stops. We find no manifest abuse of discretion, and affirm.
FACTS
One evening, members of the Seattle police department conducted an undercover buy-bust operation in the International District in Seattle. During the operation, Officer Fox purchased cocaine from Cush and others in exchange for $20 in buy money. Cush was arrested and charged with delivery of a controlled substance. The State later amended the information to include a school bus route stop sentence enhancement.
At trial, Officer Fox identified the location where he purchased the cocaine from Cush. The State also called a representative of the Seattle Public School District, Barbara Ohlsen, who listed two school bus route stops within 1,000 feet of where the delivery occurred. Ms. Ohlsen admitted that she had no personal knowledge of where those bus stops were located, relying instead on information obtained from her computer. Cush's hearsay objection to this testimony was overruled. Cush was found guilty of the delivery charge, with the jury also returning a special verdict that Cush delivered the controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop. This appeal followed.
DECISION
The sole issue presented is whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony by Barbara Ohlsen concerning the location of two school bus route stops. Without the inadmissible hearsay, Cush argues, the evidence is insufficient to support the school bus route stop enhancement and the 24-month enhancement must, therefore, be stricken. We disagree. Under RCW 69.50.435, a defendant convicted of delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop is subject to a sentencing enhancement. The statute defines "School bus route stop" as "a school bus stop as designated by a school district". RCW 69.50.435(f)(3). Cush contends that the trial court erred in admitting Ms. Ohlsen's testimony under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Cush argues the State failed to lay the necessary foundation for Ohlsen's testimony.
Computer-generated evidence is admissible as a business record under RCW 5.45.020 provided the proper foundation has been laid. State v. Kane, 23 Wn. App. 107, 111, 594 P.2d 1357 (1979). "The purpose of the statute is to permit the admission in evidence of systematically entered records made in the usual course of business without the necessity of identifying, locating and producing as witnesses each individual who made the original entries in the records." Seattle v. Heath, 10 Wn. App. 949, 955, 520 P.2d 1392 (1974). The trial court's decision to admit business records will only be reversed for manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Devries, 149 Wn.2d 842, 847, P.3d (2003); State v. Garrett, 76 Wn. App. 719, 722, 887 P.2d 488 (1995). "An abuse of discretion occurs only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court." State v. Castellanos, 132 Wn.2d 94, 97, 935 P.2d 1353 (1997).
Ms. Ohlsen testified that she was a transportation coordinator for the Seattle Public School District. She described how she used the computer in her daily work and why she believed the information provided was reliable and trustworthy. Ms. Ohlsen stated that she was trained to use the school district's computer system to monitor school bus routes and school bus stops and that these computer-generated records are maintained in the ordinary course of business. Cush had an opportunity to fully cross-examine Ms. Ohlsen on this subject. Ms. Ohlsen qualified as a proper foundation witness. See State v. Sanchez, 104 Wn. App. 976, 979, 17 P.3d 1275 (2001) (holding school district's transportation supervisor legally acted as the school district's agent regarding school bus stop designations). Because the school district's computer-generated records would have been admissible under RCW 5.45.020, Ms. Ohlsen's testimony about that information was also admissible. See State v. Ecklund, 30 Wn. App. 313, 319, 633 P.2d 933 (1981) (holding that if a business record is admissible under RCW 5.45.020, testimony as to the record's contents may be admissible as well). We find no abuse of discretion. The testimony was properly admitted into evidence.
Affirmed.
APPELWICK and BECKER, JJ., concur.