## Facts

- The State of Louisiana charged Yvonne M. Carter, also known as Yvette Scott, with second-degree murder for the November 21, 1993 shooting death of her husband, Roger Scott, outside a New Orleans lounge.
- At trial, Carter admitted she shot Scott but claimed she acted in self-defense after an argument and physical abuse.
- Carter testified that she met Scott at a lounge, that he repeatedly hit her and threatened to kill her, and that he said he was going to his truck to get a gun.
- Carter testified she pulled a gun from her purse and fired when she saw Scott reach for something in the truck.
- Carter also testified that after the shooting she called her sister, Georgette Lemon, and asked Lemon to go to the hospital to donate blood for Scott.
- Lemon testified Carter called her around 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m. and asked her to give blood.
- To rebut Carter’s and Lemon’s testimony about that call, the State introduced cellular-telephone billing records for the account in Roger Scott’s name through a BellSouth employee.
- The billing records reflected two calls on November 21, 1993, at 3:19 a.m. and 3:58 a.m.
- A second BellSouth employee testified that the number dialed from Scott’s phone was subscribed to Shwanda Matthews, not Georgette Lemon.
- The jury returned a responsive verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and the trial court imposed sentence (twenty-one years at hard labor, with a substantial portion suspended and probation conditions).
- Carter appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, arguing (among other claims) that the phone records and related subscriber testimony were inadmissible hearsay and lacked an adequate foundation.

## Issues

1. Whether cellular-telephone billing records showing the timing and numbers of calls were inadmissible hearsay.
2. Whether the State laid a sufficient foundation to admit the billing records (and testimony identifying the subscriber for the called number) as records of regularly conducted activity under La. Code Evid. art. 803(6).
3. Whether admitting the records and related testimony, if erroneous, required reversal of the manslaughter conviction.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit affirmed Carter’s manslaughter conviction and sentence.
- The court held the cellular billing printouts were not hearsay because they were computer-generated data rather than assertions by a human declarant.
- The court also concluded the State’s BellSouth witnesses provided adequate testimony about how the records were created and kept in the ordinary course of the company’s operations, supporting admission under the business-records rule.
- The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s decision to admit the records and subscriber-identification testimony used to rebut the defense version of the post-shooting phone call.

## Legal Principles

- Hearsay generally requires an out-of-court “statement” by a person offered for its truth; mechanically or electronically generated data that does not reflect a person’s assertion is not hearsay.
- Telephone-company billing logs generated automatically by a carrier’s systems as calls are placed can be treated as computer-generated records rather than testimonial statements.
- Under La. Code Evid. art. 803(6), records of regularly conducted activity may be admitted when a qualified witness shows the records are made at or near the time of the event, kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity, and made as part of the business’s regular practice.
- A sponsoring witness for business records need not be the person who entered the data, so long as the witness can explain the company’s record-making and record-keeping practices and identify the records as those practices’ product.
- Appellate courts review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and will not reverse absent error that affects the verdict.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Carter*, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed Yvonne M. Carter’s manslaughter conviction for the shooting death of her husband, holding that BellSouth cellular billing records showing calls made at 3:19 a.m. and 3:58 a.m., along with testimony identifying the subscriber for the dialed number as Shwanda Matthews rather than Georgette Lemon, were properly admitted to rebut the defense account because the records were computer-generated (not hearsay) and were supported by an adequate business-record foundation.


State v. Carter, 762 So. 2d 662 (2000)