In what circumstances will a court uphold an affidavit that states that J.N does not have any copies of the records described in the affidavit?

We appreciate appellant's concerns regarding J.N.'s affidavit. We acknowledge appellant interprets Evidence Code section 1561, subdivision (b), requiring an affiant to so state if the entity does not have the records, as applying to this case. We find, in spite of appellant's contentions, that the trial court was within its discretion to find that J.N.'s affidavit was reliable. The trial court was not unreasonable in determining that J.N. did not violate the face of Evidence Code section 1561. J.N. did, in fact, have the records described; they had been provided to her with the prosecution's subpoena. This alone may not have been enough to weigh the affidavit in the favor of reliability, except that the court heard evidence it clearly found to be credible despite J.N. not having independent copies of the particular records, that she would have been able to authenticate them as Cricket records. We also note that our role is to examine the trial court's result, and we are not bound by its reasons if we find it came to the correct result. (See People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976.) Thus, we are within our scope of review to find any deficiencies in J.N.'s affidavit were adequately supplemented by the expert witness's testimony.

A trial court has wide discretion in determining whether a qualified witness possesses sufficient personal knowledge of the identity and mode of preparation of documents for purposes of the business records exception. (Aguimatang v. California

Page 39