§44.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§44.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

(1)Purpose and scope of CR 44

RCW 5.44.040 is not superseded by CR 44. CR 44(c) preserves any other method of authentication authorized by law. Brewer v. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 23 Wn.App. 412, 417, 595P.2d949 (1979); State v. Hodge, 11 Wn.App. 323, 328, 523P.2d953, review denied, 84 Wn.2d 1006 (1974); see also State v. Ross, 30 Wn.App. 324, 327, 634P.2d887 (1981), review denied, 96 Wn.2d 1027 (1982). lnlnre Connick, 144 Wn.2d 442,457-58,28P.3d729 (2001), the Washington Supreme Court stated:

Although the State does not question the authenticity of the uncertified and unauthenticated photocopies of documents submitted by Petitioner, there is no stipulation in the record nor an order of any court to accept those documents for what they purport to be. Additionally, the State has itself submitted similar unauthenticated documents. However, because of the decision we reach in this case, we will allow reference to those documents without concluding their admissibility. It is beyond question that all parties appearing before the courts of this State are required to follow the statutes and rules relating to authentication of documents. This court will in future cases accept no less.

The court in State v. Wilson, 113 Wn.App. 122, 136-37, 52 P.3d 545 (2002), review denied, 149 Wn.2d 1006 (2003), interpreted this language from Connick to mean that documents such as uncertified or unauthenticated photocopies of apparent or purported court records that do not meet the authentication test under ER901and902, Chapter 5.44 RCW, or CR 44 may not be relied on to establish a fact in dispute absent a stipulation or order of a court to accept the documents for what they purport to be.

(2)Authentication of domestic records

A police officer's signature, even if near words that the report was signed "under penalty of perjury," is insufficient to authenticate the officer's report under CR 44(a)(1) when the document is not properly certified by a public officer having a seal of office. Burmeister v. State Farm Ins. Co., 92 Wn.App. 359, 367, 966 P.2d 921 (1998).

When a supervisor of motor vehicle records issued a certificate that verified the accuracy of a copy of an original record on file in the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that was accompanied by the department's official seal, there was sufficient authenticity to establish the document as prima facie evidence of an official record on file in the department without any necessity for extrinsic evidence. Hodge, 11 Wn.App. 323.

Usually, a public record is prepared by a public official with a duty to make it. The record's reliability is based upon that assumption, and when the official has neither prepared the document nor can authenticate its preparer, a proper foundation for its admissibility has not...