See also: BUSINESS RECORDS
PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS.

Some courts have held arrest reports to be inadmissible hearsay where offered for the truth of the matters asserted.{footnote}People v. Mata, 533 N.E.2d 370, 376 (Ill. App. 1988); People v. Wilson, 463 N.E.2d 890, 895-96 (Ill. App. 1984) (but finding harmless error); People v. Banasik, 417 N.E.2d 790, 794 (Ill. App. 1981) (reversing).{/footnote}  Arrest reports have, however, been held admissible under the hearsay exception for public records.{footnote}Jackson v. DMV, 22 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1994); Mackler v. Alexis, 130 Cal App 3d 44, 181 Cal Rptr 613 (1982); Fisk v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 127 Cal. App. 3d 72, 179 Cal. Rptr. 379 (1981).
But see Kaye v. State Dept. of Licensing, 659 P.2d 548 (Wash. App. 1983) (arrest report inadmissible where it consisted of conclusions rather than factual observations).
{/footnote} They have also been held admissible under the exception for business records.{footnote}Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union, 605 F.2d 1228 (2d Cir. 1979) (report based on information provided by complainant, not bystanders); Smith v. Spina, 477 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1973).
Lyons v. State, 506 N.E.2d 813 (Ind. 1987){/footnote}  They may also be introduced to refresh a witness’ recollection{footnote}State v. St. Amand, 274 So. 2d 179 (La. 1973); State v. Vernon, 208 So. 2d 690 (La. 19__).
See also Aycock v. State, 368 P.2d 1016 (Okla 19__) (notes made by officer at time of arrest properly used to refresh memory).
But see Rasbury v. State, 303 P.2d 465 (Okla. 1956) (reversible error to allow use of arrest report to refresh memory without showing of necessity and showing that facts stated in report were true).
CHECK Artell v State (Tex Crim) 372 SW2d 944, cert den 375 US 951, 11 L Ed 2d 312, 84 S Ct 439 (notes).{/footnote} or to impeach a witness with inconsistent statements.{footnote}People v. Mata, 533 N.E.2d 370, 376 (Ill. App. 1988) (but exclusion found harmless error).{/footnote}