Which hearsay exception applies to the absence of a record of regularly conducted activity?

Which hearsay exception applies to the absence of a record of regularly conducted activity?

• A. Absence of a public record
• B. Records of regularly conducted activity
• C. Absence of record of regularly conducted activity
• D. Statements in learned treatises

Answer: (C)

Think of a business’s routine record-keeping. If an event would normally be recorded in those routine records, then the absence of a record can itself be evidence that the event didn’t occur. That’s the essence of the absence of a record of regularly conducted activity. The idea is reliability: because the system routinely logs such events, not having a record suggests nonexistence of the event. This is distinct from simply having a record (that would fall under the business records exception for admissible records) and from showing that no public record exists (another separate rule), and it’s not about learned treatises. So when you want to prove that something didn’t happen and you can point to the ordinary practice of keeping records, the absence of a record is the right exception to use.

Think of a business’s routine record-keeping. If an event would normally be recorded in those routine records, then the absence of a record can itself be evidence that the event didn’t occur. That’s the essence of the absence of a record of regularly conducted activity. The idea is reliability: because the system routinely logs such events, not having a record suggests nonexistence of the event.

This is distinct from simply having a record (that would fall under the business records exception for admissible records) and from showing that no public record exists (another separate rule), and it’s not about learned treatises. So when you want to prove that something didn’t happen and you can point to the ordinary practice of keeping records, the absence of a record is the right exception to use.