Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Commercial Transactions

Evidence of Fraudulent Alteration of Poultry Condemnation
Certificates Declared Admissible

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Jazayeri v. Mao, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 198 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009), the California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division 4 held that evidence of a poultry processor's fraudulent alteration of poultry condemnation certificates had been wrongfully excluded by the lower court, and concluded that the evidence (including dead-on-arrival records, purchase orders, and the altered certificates) was properly admissible under various exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Background

Poultry suppliers brought this action against poultry processor Mao Foods and its owners for fraud and breach of contract, alleging that the processor had altered U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) poultry condemnation certificates to increase the number of dead birds indicated in the certificates, thereby reducing the payment it owed to its suppliers. Id. at 203. The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted judgment for the defendants after excluding nearly all of the suppliers' evidence, including the altered certificates and some unaltered ones obtained from USDA records, as hearsay or for lack of authentication, and the suppliers appealed. Id. at 210.

Analysis and Holdings

The appellate court concluded that the altered certificates were properly authenticated and not hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and that the unaltered certificates obtained from the USDA were admissible as official records. Id. at 211. The court likewise found that other records excluded by the lower court, such as dead-on-arrival records and purchase orders, were admissible as business records, and held that payment calculation sheets and weight slips were admissible as admissions by a party opponent or adoptive admissions. Id. Therefore, the appellate court remanded the case for retrial with the admissible evidence. Id. at 220.

The case was decided on May 27, 2009.