About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

6 Cap. U. L. Rev. 625 (1976-1977)
Proof of Authentication under the New Ohio Rules of Evidence

handle is hein.journals/capulr6 and id is 635 raw text is: PROOF OF AUTHENTICATION UNDER THE NEW OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE RANDOLPH C. WISEMAN* Authentication, a necessary prerequisite to the introduction of writings and various other sorts of tangibles into evidence, provides certain minimum assurances that the evidence is what it purports to be. For example, an article of clothing found at the scene of a crime can hardly constitute relevant evidence against an accused unless his ownership or previous possession of the article is shown. The present law of authentication and self-authentication in Ohio is unclear and there are few statutes dealing with this area.' Article IX of the new Ohio Rules of Evidence, effective July, 1977, assists both the bench and bar by offering concise answers to questions concerning this area. Article IX consists of three rules. Rule 901(A) sets forth the basic requirements of authentication or identification,2 incorporating the long-standing common law principle that most types of demonstrative or physical evidence must be authenticated before they are properly admissible at trial. Authentication connects the particular evidence sought to be introduced to the issues or persons involved in the litigation and in that sense lays the foundation for admissibility. In short, the authentication procedure is a method of establishing the relevancy of the evidence sought to be admitted.3 For example, in litigation between Jones and Brown, if Jones seeks to introduce into evidence Brown's handwritten, signed letter, Jones could authenticate it by direct testimony that because of their previous correspondence, he recognizes Brown's handwriting and signature. This would satisfy Rule 901(A), because the letter would have been authenticated as a condition precedent to admissiblity . . . by evidence sufficient to, support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Rule 901(B) sets forth a nonexhaustive list of ten illustrations of authentication.4 Illustration (1) broadly contemplates a range of testimony from *B.S., East Tennessee State University; J.D., Capital University Law School. Partner: Tyack, Scott, Grossman & Wiseman, Columbus, Ohio 1. OHIo REV. CODE §§2317.40 & 2317.422 (Page, Supp. 1976). 2. 901(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. 3. McCoiwICK ON EVIDENCE §218 (2d ed. Cleary 1972). 4. (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most