United States of America, Plaintiff--appellee v. Earl Martin Price, Jr., Defendant--appellant, 818 F.2d 30 (4th Cir. 1987)

Earl Martin Price, Jr. was convicted on five counts of mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. He appeals, contending that the district court committed reversible error by receiving into evidence certain postmarks to prove that the communications were put into the United States mails. Specifically he argues that the postmarks did not fall into the residual exception to the hearsay rule, Fed. Evidence Rule 803(24), and that the government did not comply with the notice requirements of the rule.^* 

We affirm.

We agree with the dictum in United States v. Cowley, 720 F.2d 1037, 1045 (9 Cir. 1983), that a postmark is a "perfect candidate" for admission under Rule 803(24). It is at least as trustworthy as government documents, business records and other evidence admissible under enumerated exceptions to the hearsay rule. Like a business record, a postmark is a record maintained in the ordinary course of postal service business, and is not something created on special occasions. It is a record that is unlikely to be fabricated or misapplied by a postal worker.

While it is true that, in a departure from the preferred practice, see United States v. One 1968 Piper Navajo Twin-Engine, 594 F.2d 1040, 1041 (5 Cir. 1979), the government gave Price no formal or specific notice that it would rely on postmarks as proof of mailing, it did supply Price's counsel with a general discovery letter listing the materials that the government had gathered for trial. The letter listed the threatening communications by date and postmark--for example, "A letter to Glenda Gordon dated 10/14/85, with a 10/16/85 postmark." Thus some notice was given, and we think it adequate absent any showing by Price as to how or why he was prejudiced by a lack of greater specificity. Cf. United States v. Brown, 770 F.2d 768, 771 (9 Cir. 1985); United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341, 348 (3 Cir. 1978); United States v. Iaconetti, 540 F.2d 574, 578 (2 Cir. 1976).

We do not think that our holding in United States v. Mandel, 591 F.2d 1347, 1369 (4 Cir. 1979), is apposite. Here it would be virtually impossible to determine the identity of the particular postal worker who caused the envelope to be postmarked.

AFFIRMED.