Rule 2:901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification

• Library: A Guide to the Rules of Evidence in Virginia (Virginia CLE) (2021 Ed.)

Rule 2:901. REQUIREMENT OF AUTHENTICATION OR IDENTIFICATION

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

NOTES

Virginia courts recognize that there are many ways to lay a foundation for the introduction of evidence. The important thing is that the trier of fact has a basis for accepting the proponent's representations about that evidence. Foulkes v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. (2 Rob.) 836 (1843) (non-author could authenticate document). Some common examples are:

Testimony of a witness with knowledge. Testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Blair v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 483, 491 (1983). This testimony can cover a wide range of topics such as the authenticity of a document that a witness actually saw being executed, the identification of a weapon as the one the witness found beside the body, or the identification of photographs, including ones taken by someone else, as fairly and accurately depicting an accident scene familiar to the witness. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Futrell, 209 Va. 266, 271 (1968), a state trooper who had been at the scene of an accident laid the foundation for the introduction of a photograph that had been published in a newspaper by testifying that it "actually portrayed the conditions as he recalled them." In Adams v. Ristine, 138 Va. 273, 288 (1924), the court allowed testimony from a woman who was familiar with the handwriting of two men, saying: "it was competent to prove their genuineness by any witness who knew the fact." It also allowed a handwriting expert to testify based on several photographs. "The witness made the photographs himself and testified to their correctness." Id. at 294.

The testimony of more than one witness may be necessary to establish a foundation, for example, that an object seized during an arrest is the same one being offered in evidence or was delivered to a chemist, tested, and determined to be a controlled substance. The object has not been authenticated until the required showing has been satisfied. If, for example, the item seized was one not subject to

[Page 154]

easy alteration, a person who saw it being seized might adequately authenticate it at trial without accounting for its whereabouts in the intervening weeks, months, or years. Se...