Short answer. Yes, on a specific condition. A witness may testify from a writing or record even though they retain no recollection of the particular facts, provided they can swear that the record correctly stated the transaction when it was made. The rule adds that such evidence must be received with caution.
What the law says
A witness may also testify from such a writing or record, though he or she retains no recollection of the particular facts, if he or she is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution.
Rule 132, Section 16 — When witness may refer to memorandum. Read the full provision →
Two situations that are often confused
The rule covers two things that look alike and work differently. In the first, the witness looks at a document and the memory comes back, so the testimony is the witness's own recollection and the document is only what triggered it. In the second, the memory does not come back at all. The witness retains no recollection of the particular facts but can still vouch for the record. The rule permits testimony in that second situation too, resting on the record rather than on memory.
What the witness must be able to swear to
The condition is precise. The witness must be able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made. Notice that this is not a claim about the events themselves, which the witness no longer remembers, but a claim about the record: that it was accurate at the time it was created. A witness who cannot honestly say that much does not satisfy the rule, and a witness quietly reconstructing what probably happened is not doing what the rule contemplates at all.
Received with caution
The rule does not stop at permitting the evidence. It adds, in the same sentence, that such evidence must be received with caution. That instruction is directed at how the evidence is weighed once it has been admitted, and it signals that testimony resting on a record rather than on recollection is treated as inherently less satisfactory. Anyone planning to rely on this route should expect the record itself, and the circumstances in which it was made, to attract close attention.
The document still has to be produced
Whichever of the two situations applies, the disclosure consequence is identical. The writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. So a record used to carry testimony that memory cannot support is fully exposed to the other side. Choosing which document to build that testimony on is a decision to make well before the witness reaches the stand, not at it.