![]() 509 (2011) (testimony from phone company employee and a detective identifying cell phone records “sufficiently satisfied the ‘witness with knowledge’ standard provided for under Rule 901(b)” and provided “sufficient evidence to show that the records were, as the State claimed, records from Sprint/Nextel, and any question as to the accuracy or reliability of such records is a jury question”) State v. 197 (2014) (person who received text messages and detective who took pictures of those messages were both persons with knowledge, and their testimony sufficiently authenticated the photographs) State v. 220 (2017) (photograph of defendant was properly authenticated by officer’s testimony identifying it) State v. This type of authentication covers “a broad spectrum ranging from testimony of a witness who was present at the signing of a document to testimony establishing narcotics as taken from an accused and accounting for custody through the period until trial” G.S. Testimony from a witness that he or she recognizes and can identify a particular item of evidence is one of the easiest and most commonly used methods of authentication. “Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.” The ten methods listed in Rule 901(b) as illustrative examples of how the foundation requirements of Rule 901(a) could be satisfied are summarized below. The examples are not intended as an exclusive enumeration of allowable methods but are meant to guide and suggest, leaving room for growth and development in this area of the law.” G.S. The list of examples in Rule 901(b) “draws largely upon the experience embodied in the common law and in statutes to furnish illustrative applications of the general principle set forth in subdivision (a). ![]() Methods of Authenticationīy 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. For more information about “conditional relevancy” under Rule 104(b), see the related Evidence entry on Preliminary Questions. However, the court may admit a piece of evidence subject to a later showing that establishes its relevancy in the case: “his requirement of showing authenticity or identity falls in the category of relevancy dependent upon fulfillment of a condition of fact and is governed by the procedure set forth in Rule 104(b).” G.S. 8C-901, Official Commentary (noting, as an example, that if “the speaker is not identified” on a phone call then the “telephone conversations may be irrelevant” because it has not been established that the caller has any connection to the case). Īuthentication under Rule 901 represents a “special aspect of relevancy.” G.S. “Once that threshold is met, it is for the factfinder to determine the appropriate weight and credibility that the evidence ought to be given.” State v. A “prima facie showing” means that the proponent of the evidence only has to make a sufficient showing such that a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that the matter is what the proponent claims it to be. Prosecutors should remember (and remind the judge, if necessary) that the burden for authentication under Rule 901 is quite low. 714 (1988) (“a prima facie showing, by direct or circumstantial evidence, such that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity, is enough”).Ī dispute about the authentication of a key piece of evidence can sometimes be one of the most contentious issues in the whole trial. 279 (2019) (“The trial court's function is to serve as gatekeeper in assessing whether the proponent has offered a satisfactory foundation from which the could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic.”) (internal quotation omitted) State v. 510 (2016) (“Importantly, the burden to authenticate under Rule 901 is not high-only a prima facie showing is required.”). 18 (1993) (“It was not error for the trial court to admit the if it could reasonably determine that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that ‘the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’”) State v. Instead, the rule only requires the proponent to offer “sufficient evidence” from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that it is authentic. ![]() ![]() However, Rule 901 does not require the proponent of the evidence to “conclusively prove” the authentication or identity of the item to be admitted. Before any item of evidence may be admitted, the proponent must make a sufficient showing that the “matter in question is what its proponent claims” G.S. 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. ![]() Rule 901(a) – Requirement of Authentication or Identification ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |