In a DUI trial, if an officer no longer remembers, can he read his report into evidence based on Past Recollection Recorded?

Is this assigned work? Don't run the risk of an academic integrity violation. I have all the work I can handle.

Sounds like a law school question, for which it would be unethical for me to answer. Best of luck.

Ask your teacher. Evidence is a very involved course and there might be several ways to introduce this in a trial.

I am sure you have a text book on the rules of evidence, I suggest you start there. As a starting point, (and maybe you know this), the police report IS HEARSAY. It is an out-of- court statement being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Step 2, is there a hearsay exception that applies. Keep in mind, there are 2 variants of the doctrine here, there is Past Recollection Recorded and Past Recollection Refreshed (or revived). In Past Recollection Recorded, the evidence is the document itself (although jurisdictions differ on this point). When a proper foundation is laid, the document (the police report) is actually admitted into evidence and can be viewed by the jury. Past Recollection Refreshed is the idea that the document helps the witness recall the situation. Here, the witness (the police officer) is the evidence and the document is merely used to help the officer recollect what happened (the jury does not get the document). The other issue you need to be aware is that the report may contain hearsay evidence (a statement of another person). From there, you should be able to read up on the issue, find the case law, and answer the question yourself.

GO READ THE BOOK. YOU THINK WE'LL BE THERE TO ANSWER THIS FOR YOU AT THE BAR?

To answer the first part of your very convoluted question: yes, the officer can refer to his report in this manner: "I don't recall" "will looking at your report help to refresh your recollection?" "Yes" "Please look at your report and when you are done, look up and tell the jury what you remember". If he doesn't recall after that, that portion of the report can be read into the record. As far as the second part, technically, yes, but I would object as double hearsay. Look at the case Hosek v. Superior Court 10 Cal. App.4th 607 (1992). VLC