The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Flores-Lozano on Thursday, October 20, 2016.
Maria Guadalupe Flores-Lozano was a manager at a fast-food chain. The fast-food chain’s loss prevention director noticed that Flores-Lozano was giving a high number of discounts to customers and suspected that she was pocketing the difference between the amount the customer paid and the discount. He prepared a spreadsheet showing 4400 transactions in which Flores-Lozano gave discounts on cash transactions, calculating the total amount of the suspected theft at $23,320.01. The loss prevention director confronted Flores-Lozano with the spreadsheet and still photos from the chain’s surveillance video, and she admitted she had been stealing from the company. The loss prevention director contacted the police, and Flores-Lozano was charged with theft of over $20,000.
The sole issue at trial was the amount of the theft. The People argued Flores-Lozano should be charged with the total amount calculated by the loss prevention director, but Flores-Lozano countered she should only be charged with the specific instances in which she had admitted guilt, which amounted to less than $500. The trial court disagreed with both parties and ultimately found Flores-Lozano guilty of the lesser included offense of theft of more than $1,000 but less than $20,000.
On appeal, Flores-Lozano contended that the spreadsheet prepared by the loss prevention director constituted impermissible hearsay. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that it did contain hearsay, but was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, CRE 803(6). The court analyzed the five factors of CRE 803(6) and found that the spreadsheet satisfied all the factors. First, the data contained in the spreadsheet was automatically generated at the point of sale. Second, the spreadsheet was prepared by the loss prevention director, a person who indisputably had knowledge of the matters contained in the spreadsheet. Next, the third, fourth, and fifth factors were satisfied by the loss prevention director’s testimony that he regularly conducted investigations of theft within the restaurant chain and regularly prepared and kept spreadsheets of the records in the course of his investigations. The court found that the spreadsheet was properly admitted. Although the loss prevention director testified that he prepared the spreadsheet for litigation, the court was entitled to disregard his testimony.
The judgment was affirmed. Judge Bernard wrote a special concurrence; he would have found that all of the data contained in the spreadsheet was made in the regular course of business.