Absence of a Record of Regularly Conducted Activity is evidence that a matter did not occur or exist if which condition is met?

• A. A record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind, and neither the possible source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
• B. The matter is mentioned in a public record.
• C. The declarant testifies in court.
• D. The event occurred after the record keeping.

Answer: (A)

The rule allows you to treat the absence of a record as proof that a matter did not occur or exist when the thing being alleged is one that would normally be recorded in the regular course of business. The key requirement is that a record was regularly kept for that kind of matter, and there is no indication from the information source or surrounding circumstances that the record-keeping is untrustworthy. If those conditions are met, the missing entry can reasonably suggest that the event did not happen or the matter did not exist.

The other options don’t fit because they don’t address the necessity of a regularly kept record or the trustworthiness of the source. Merely referring to a public record, a declarant testifying, or the timing of the event relative to record-keeping does not establish the admissible basis for an absence of a record under this rule.