Authentication and Identification of Exhibits — Rules 901, 902, and 903

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Authentication and Identification of Exhibits — Rules 901, 902, and 903

SUMMARY OF RULES 901, 902, and 903

Rule 901 — Requirement of Authentication or Identification

• Examples of authentication or identification include:

○ All documents must be authenticated.
○ Requires witness testimony with knowledge.
○ A non-expert familiar with handwriting is acceptable.
○ Expert identification and comparison.
○ Distinctive characteristics.
○ Voice identification.
○ Telephone conversations. For a person, authenticate by evidence that the call was made to a number assigned to the person, and show the person answering was the one to be called. For a business, authenticate by evidence that the call was made to the business, and the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
○ Public records or reports.
○ Evidence of ancient documents or data compilation in such condition that there is no suspicion concerning authenticity, located in a place it would likely be if authentic, and in existence for 20 or more years.
○ Evidence that the process or system produces an accurate result.
○ The method is approved by statute or rule.

Rule 902 — Self-Authentication

• Certain documents may be self-authenticated.

Rule 903 — Subscribing Witness's Testimony Unnecessary

• The document may be admitted as authentic without the testimony of a subscribing witness unless otherwise required by law.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES

Acceptable Authentications

• Testimony of Witness with Knowledge. People v. Esch, 786 P.2d 462 (Colo. App. 1989).
• Familiarity with Signature. C.R.S. § 13-25-104.

○ Does not require an expert. Westland Distributing, Inc. v. Rio Grande Motorway, Inc., 555 P.2d 990 (Colo. App. 1976).

• Computer Documents.

○ Do not need testimony concerning the accuracy of the computer process where records have data entered automatically rather than manually. People v. Huehn, 53 P.3d 733 (Colo. App. 2002).
○ Computer printouts may be authenticated by a description of the regular business process and that it produces accurate results. Benham v. Pryke, 703 P.2d 644 (Colo. App. 1985), rev'd on other grounds, 744 P.2d 67 (Colo. 1987).
○ Evidence of potential tampering with a computer is relevant. People v. Slusher, 844 P.2d 1222 (Colo. App. 1992).
○ CRE 1001 defines writings and recordings to include magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation. If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight and shown to accurately reflect the data is an original. A duplicate is a counterpart produced by mechanical or electronic recording or other equivalent techniques that accurately reproduce the original.

• Demonstrative Evidence.

○ The Colorado Rules of Evidence do not specifically refer to demonstrative evidence. To be admissible, it must be shown to be reasonably accurate and correct, and admission is within the trial court's discretion. Martinez v. W.R. Grace Co., 782 P.2d 827 (Colo. App. 1989).
○ Must be reasonably accurate as testified by a person with personal knowledge, but need not be prepared by a witness. People v. Richardson, 58 P.3d 1039 (Colo. App. 2002).
○ If using a diagram, it need not be to scale but must be a fair and accurate depiction.
○ The verification of a diagram is similar to the verification of a photograph. The elements of a proper foundation include testimony that the diagram depicts a certain subject, the witness is familiar with the subject and explains the basis for familiarity, and the witness testifies the diagram is an accurate depiction of the subject.
○ Computer-generated animation is admissible as demonstrative evidence to assist a

...