ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION

Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification.

 (a)  General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

 (b)  Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:

   (1)  Testimony of Witness With Knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.

   (2)  Nonexpert Opinion on Handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.

   (3)  Comparison by Trier or Expert Witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.

   (4)  Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.

   (5)  Voice Identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.

   (6)  Telephone Conversations. Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if (A) in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or (B) in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.

   (7)  Public Records or Reports. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.

   (8)  Ancient Documents or Data Compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in existence 30 years or more at the time it is offered.

   (9)  Process or System. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.

   (10)  Methods Provided by Law. Any method of authentication or identification provided by statute or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.

   Paragraph 901(a) is identical to F.R.E. 901(a) and consistent with Pennsylvania law. Although the authentication or identification requirement has not been authoritatively defined, Pennsylvania courts have imposed the requirement. It may be expressed as follows: When a party offers evidence contending either expressly or impliedly that the evidence is connected with a person, place, thing or event, the party must provide evidence sufficient to support a finding of the contended connection. See Commonwealth v. Pollock, 414 Pa. Super. 66, 606 A.2d 500 (1992); Commonwealth v. Hudson, 489 Pa. 620, 414 A.2d 1381 (1980).

   In some cases, real evidence may not be relevant unless its condition at the time of trial is similar to its condition at the time of the incident in question. In such cases, the party offering the evidence must also introduce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the condition is similar. Pennsylvania law treats this requirement as an aspect of authentication. See Commonwealth v. Hudson, 489 Pa. 620, 414 A.2d 1381 (1980); Heller v. Equitable Gas Co., 333 Pa. 433, 3 A.2d 343 (1939).

   Demonstrative evidence such as photographs, motion pictures, diagrams and models must be authenticated by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the demonstrative evidence fairly and accurately represents that which it purports to depict. See Nyce v. Muffley, 384 Pa. 107, 119 A.2d 530 (1956).

   Paragraph 901(b) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b).

   Paragraph 901(b)(1) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b)(1). It is consistent with Pennsylvania law in that the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge may be sufficient to authenticate or identify the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Hudson, 489 Pa. 620, 414 A.2d 1381 (1980); Heller v. Equitable Gas Co., 333 Pa. 433, 3 A.2d 343 (1939).

   Paragraph 901(b)(2) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b)(2). It is consistent with 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  6111, which also deals with the admissibility of handwriting.

   Paragraph 901(b)(3) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b)(3). It is consistent with Pennsylvania law. When there is a question as to the authenticity of an exhibit, the trier of fact will have to resolve the issue. This may be done by comparing the exhibit to authenticated specimens. See Commonwealth v. Gipe, 169 Pa. Super. 623, 84 A.2d 366 (1951) (comparison of typewritten document with authenticated specimen). Under this rule, the court must decide whether the specimen used for comparison to the exhibit is authentic. If the court determines that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the specimen is authentic, the trier of fact is then permitted to compare the exhibit to the authenticated specimen. Under Pennsylvania law, lay or expert testimony is admissible to assist the jury in resolving the question. See, e.g., 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  6111.

   Paragraph 901(b)(4) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b)(4). Pennsylvania law has permitted evidence to be authenticated by circumstantial evidence similar to that discussed in this illustration. The evidence may take a variety of forms including: evidence establishing chain of custody, see Commonwealth v. Melendez, 326 Pa. Super. 531, 474 A.2d 617 (1984); evidence that a letter is in reply to an earlier communication, see Roe v. Dwelling House Ins. Co. of Boston, 149 Pa. 94, 23 A. 718 (1892); testimony that an item of evidence was found in a place connected to a party, see Commonwealth v. Bassi, 284 Pa. 81, 130 A. 311 (1925); a phone call authenticated by evidence of party’s conduct after the call, see Commonwealth v. Gold, 123 Pa. Super. 128, 186 A. 208 (1936); and the identity of a speaker established by the content and circumstances of a conversation, see Bonavitacola v. Cluver, 422 Pa. Super. 556, 619 A.2d 1363 (1993).

   Paragraph 901(b)(5) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b)(5). Pennsylvania law has permitted the identification of a voice to be made by a person familiar with the alleged speaker’s voice. See Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 472 Pa. 510, 372 A.2d 806 (1977).

   Paragraph 901(b)(6) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b)(6). This paragraph appears to be consistent with Pennsylvania law. See Smithers v. Light, 305 Pa. 141, 157 A. 489 (1931); Wahl v. State Workmen’s Ins. Fund, 139 Pa. Super. 53, 11 A.2d 496 (1940); see also 2 McCormick, Evidence §  226 (4th ed. 1992).

   Paragraph 901(b)(7) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b)(7). This paragraph illustrates that public records and reports may be authenticated in the same manner as other writings. In addition, public records and reports may be self-authenticating as provided in Pa.R.E. 902. Public records and reports may also be authenticated as otherwise provided by statute. See paragraph 901(b)(10) and its Comment.

   Paragraph 901(b)(8) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b)(8), except that the Pennsylvania rule requires thirty years, while the Federal Rule requires twenty years. This change makes the rule consistent with Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth ex rel. Ferguson v. Ball, 277 Pa. 301, 121 A. 191 (1923); Jones v. Scranton Coal Co., 274 Pa. 312, 118 A. 219 (1922).

   Paragraph 901(b)(9) is identical to F.R.E. 901(b)(9). There is very little authority in Pennsylvania discussing authentication of evidence as provided in this illustration. The paragraph is consistent with the authority that exists. For example, in Commonwealth v. Visconto, 301 Pa. Super. 543, 448 A.2d 41 (1982), a computer print-out was held to be admissible. In Appeal of Chartier Valley School District, 67 Pa. Cmwlth. 121, 447 A.2d 317 (1982), computer studies were not admitted as business records, in part, because it was not established that the mode of preparing the evidence was reliable. The court used a similar approach in Commonwealth v. Westwood, 324 Pa. 289, 188 A. 304 (1936) (test for gun powder residue) and in other cases to admit various kinds of scientific evidence. See Commonwealth v. Middleton, 379 Pa. Super. 502, 550 A.2d 561 (1988) (electrophoretic analysis of dried blood); Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 413 Pa. Super. 498, 605 A.2d 1228 (1992) (results of DNA/RFLP testing).

   Paragraph 901(b)(10) differs from F.R.E. 901(b)(10) to eliminate the reference to Federal law and to make the paragraph conform to Pennsylvania law.

   There are a number of statutes that provide for authentication or identification of various types of evidence. See, e.g., 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  6103 (official records within the Commonwealth); 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  5328 (domestic records outside the Commonwealth and foreign records); 35 P. S. §  450.810 (vital statistics); 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  6106 (documents filed in a public office); 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  6110 (certain registers of marriages, births and burials records); 75 Pa.C.S.A. §  1547(c) (chemical tests for alcohol and controlled substances); 75 Pa.C.S.A. §  3368 (speed timing devices); 75 Pa.C.S.A. §  1106(c) (certificates of title); 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  6151 (certified copies of medical records); 23 Pa.C.S.A. §  5104 blood tests to determine paternity); 23 Pa.C.S.A. §  4343 (genetic tests to determine paternity).

 Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:

   (1)  Domestic Public Documents Under Seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.

   (2)  Domestic Public Documents Not Under Seal. A document purporting to bear the signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in paragraph (1) hereof, having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.

   (3)  Foreign Public Documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.

   (4)  Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any statute or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.

   (5)  Official Publications. Books, pamphlets, or other publications purporting to be issued by public authority.

   (6)  Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals.

   (7)  Trade Inscriptions and the Like. Inscriptions, signs, tags, or labels purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating ownership, control, or origin.

   (8)  Acknowledged Documents. Documents accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment executed in the manner provided by law by a notary public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments.

   (9)  Commercial Paper and Related Documents. Commercial paper, signatures thereon, and documents relating thereto to the extent provided by general commercial law.

   (10)  Presumptions Authorized by Statute. Any signature, document or other matter declared by statute to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

   (11)  Certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity. The original or a duplicate of a domestic record of a regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by a written declaration of its custodian or other qualified person, verified as provided in Pa.R.C.P. 76, certifying that the record—

       (A)   was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;

       (B)   was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and

       (C)   was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.

       A party intending to offer a record onto evidence under this paragraph must provide written notice of that intention to all adverse parties, and must make the record and declaration available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.

   (12)  Certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity. The original or a duplicate of a foreign record of regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by a written declaration by its custodian or other qualified person certifying that the record—

       (A)   was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;

       (B)   was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and

       (C)   was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.

       The declaration must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the maker to criminal penalty under the laws of the country where the declaration is signed. A party intending to offer a record onto evidence under this paragraph must provide written notice of that intention to all adverse parties, and must make the record and declaration available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.

   This rule permits some evidence to be authenticated without extrinsic evidence of authentication or identification. In other words, the requirement that a proponent must present authentication or identification evidence as a condition precedent to admissibility, as provided by Pa.R.E. 901(a), is inapplicable to the evidence discussed in Pa.R.E. 902. The rationale for the rule is that, for the types of evidence covered by Pa.R.E. 902, the risk of forgery or deception is so small, and the likelihood of discovery of forgery or deception is so great, that the cost of presenting extrinsic evidence and the waste of court time is not justified. Of course, this rule does not preclude the opposing party from contesting the authenticity of the evidence. In that situation, authenticity is to be resolved by the finder of fact.

   Paragraphs 902(1), (2), (3) and (4) deal with self-authentication of various kinds of public documents and records. They are identical to F.R.E. 902(1), (2), (3) and (4), except that Pa.R.E. 901(4) eliminates the reference to Federal law. These paragraphs are consistent with Pennsylvania statutory law. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  6103 (official records within the Commonwealth); 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  5328 (domestic records outside the Commonwealth and foreign records); 35 P. S. §  450.810 (vital statistics); 42 Pa.C.S.A. §  6106 (documents filed in a public office).

   Paragraphs 902(5), (6) and (7) are identical to F.R.E. 902(5), (6) and (7). There are no corresponding statutory provisions in Pennsylvania; however, 45 Pa.C.S.A. §  506 (judicial notice of the contents of the Pennsylvania Code and the Pennsylvania Bulletin) is similar to Pa.R.E. 902(5). Although these paragraphs are new to Pennsylvania, their adoption is amply supported by the rationale for Pa.R.E. 902.

   Paragraph 902(8) is identical to F.R.E. 902(8). It is consistent with Pennsylvania law. See Sheaffer v. Baeringer, 346 Pa. 32, 29 A.2d 697 (1943); Williamson v. Barrett, 147 Pa. Super. 460, 24 A.2d 546 (1942); 21 P. S. §  291.1-291.13 (Uniform Acknowledgement Act); 57 P. S. § §  147-169 (Notary Public Law). An acknowledged document is a type of official record and the treatment of acknowledged documents is consistent with Paragraphs 902(1), (2), (3) and (4).

   Paragraph 902(9) is identical to F.R.E. 902(9). Pennsylvania law treats various kinds of commercial paper and documents as self-authenticating. See, e.g., 13 Pa.C.S.A. §  1202 (documents authorized or required by contract to be issued by a third party); 13 Pa.C.S.A. §  3505 (evidence of dishonor of negotiable instruments).

   Paragraph 902(10) differs from F.R.E. 902(10) to eliminate the reference to Federal law and to make the paragraph conform to Pennsylvania law. In some Pennsylvania statutes, the self-authenticating nature of a document is expressed by language creating a ‘‘presumption’’ of authenticity. See 13 Pa.C.S.A. §  3505. In other Pennsylvania statutes, the self-authenticating nature of a document is expressed by language that the document is ‘‘prima facie’’ authentic or genuine. See 13 Pa.C.S.A. §  1202. This paragraph recognizes the continuing vitality of such statutes.

   Paragraphs (11) and (12), which were added in 2001, permit the authentication of domestic and foreign records of regularly conducted activity by certification. This is new to Pennsylvania law for records of regularly conducted activity, but is consistent with Pa.R.E. 902(2), (3), and (4) which permit authentication of various kinds of public documents and records by certification. Pa.R.E. 902(11) is similar to F.R.E. 902(11). The language of Pa.R.E. 902(11) differs from F.R.E. 902(11) in that it refers to Pa.R.C.P. 76 rather than to federal law. Pa.R.E. 902(12) differs from F.R.E. 902(12) in that the words ‘‘in a civil case’’ are deleted. The words ‘‘in a civil case’’ appear in F.R.E. 902(12) because certification of foreign business records in federal criminal cases is allowed by 18 U.S.C. §  3505. Pennsylvania has no comparable statute. Instead, Pa.R.E. 902(12), as amended, allows certification of foreign business records in Pennsylvania criminal cases, as well as civil cases. The addition of paragraphs (11) and (12) is intended to implement the amendment of Pa.R.E. 803(6).

   Official Note

   Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; amended November 2, 2001; effective January 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the November 2, 2001, amendments adding paragraphs (11) and (12) published with Court’s Order at 31 Pa.B. 6384 (November 24, 2001).

 The testimony of a subscribing witness is not necessary to authenticate a writing unless required by the laws of the jurisdiction whose laws govern the validity of the writing.

   This rule is identical to F.R.E. 903. The rule is consistent with Pennsylvania law in that there are no laws in Pennsylvania requiring the testimony of a subscribing witness to authenticate a writing.