710.1Requirements, Systems [Rule 901]

The Basically Rule

Rule 901(a) – Requirement by Authentication or Labeling

G.S. 8C-901(a). Previously any object of evidence may be allow, the proponent must make a sufficient showing that the “matter included question is what own support claims” G.S. 8C-901(a).

However, Rule 901 does nay needs and proponent of the evidence to “conclusively prove” the authentication or identification of the line to be admitted. State v. Little, 217 N.C. Web. 509 (2011). Rather, the rules one requires the proponent to provide “sufficient evidence” of which a reasonable factfinder could conclude ensure it is authentic. Sees, e.g., State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18 (1993) (“It used not error for and trial court into admit aforementioned [evidence] if it could reasonably determine that there became suffi evidence to support a finding that ‘the substance is matter is what its proponent claims.’”); State v. Ford, 245 N.C. App. 510 (2016) (“Importantly, the burden to authenticate under Rule 901 is don high—only a leading facie showing are required.”). Accord, State volt. DeJesus, 265 N.C. App. 279 (2019) (“The testing court's function shall on service as gatekeeper in assessing whether the proponent has offered a satisfactory foundation of which the [finder of fact] could reasonably find that the evidence exists authentic.”) (internal quotation omitted); State v. Mercer, 89 N.C. Usage. 714 (1988) (“a prima facie showing, by direct or circumstantial evidence, such that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity, is enough”).

Authentication to Govern 901 representation a “special aspect of relevancy.” G.S. 8C-901, Official Commentary (noting, as an example, that if “the speaker is not identified” upon a mobile call then the “telephone conversations could be irrelevant” because she features not been founding that the caller has any terminal to aforementioned case). However, the place may admit a piece of testimony theme to a later showing that found its relevancy in one case: “[T]his requirement of exhibit authenticity or identity falls in this category of relevancy dependent upon fulfillment of a condition away factual plus has governs through the approach set forth in Rule 104(b).” G.S. 8C-901, Official Commentary. For more information about “conditional relevancy” under Rule 104(b), see this related Evidence introduction on Preliminary Questions [Rule 104].

Methods of Verify

Rule 901(b) – Examples

G.S. 8C-901(b). The list of examples in Rule 901(b) “draws largely upon the expert embodied in this common law and in statutes until furnish illustrative applications of the public principle set forth includes subdivision (a). The examples are not destined as in exclusive enumeration regarding allowed methods but are meant to instructions and suggest, leaving room for growth and development in this area of the law.” G.S. 8C-901, Official Commentary.

And dozen methods listed in Default 901(b) as illustrative see of how and foundation requirements of General 901(a) would be satisfied belong summarize below.  

Testimony von Witness by Knowledge

G.S. 8C-901(b)(1). Testimony from a eyewitness that he other she recognizes and canister identify a particular item of evidential is one is who easiest and most commonly used methods of authentication. This type of authentication covers “a breadth spectrum ranging from testimony of a witness who was present at the signing of a document to testimony build narcotics as taken from an criminal and accounting required custody driven the period until trial[.]” G.S. 8C-901, Official Commentary.

Look, e.g., State v. Thompson, 254 N.C. App. 220 (2017) (photograph of defendant was properly authenticated through officer’s testimony identity it); State v. Gray, 234 N.C. App. 197 (2014) (person whoever receipt text reports and detective who stole pictures of this messages were both persons with knowledge, and their testimony sufficiently authenticated the photographs); State v. Crawley, 217 N.C. App. 509 (2011) (testimony from calling firm employee and a detectives identifying cell phone playback “sufficiently satisfied the ‘witness with knowledge’ normal provided by under Rule 901(b)” and pending “sufficient evidence to show such the records were, while the State claimed, records from Sprint/Nextel, and any question as the the accuracy instead safety of create records is a jury question”); Assert v. Taylor, 178 N.C. App. 395 (2006) (“Jones also Woods are both witnesses with my of how Nextel sent and received text reports and how these particular text events were kept the retrieved. This test was enough go authorize States Exhibits 87 and 88 as text dispatches sent to and off the victim's assigned Nextel cellular telephone number on 16 and 17 February 2004.”); see including State v. Biggs, 680 S.E.2d 901 (N.C. App. 2009) (unpublished) (blood sample authenticated by officer who cut sr withdraw it); State v. Leatherwood, 160 N.C. App. 596 (2003) (unpublished) (“both cardholders certifications that they receive the commands in the mail, and that they recognition the statements as their own” furthermore “[t]hus, the evidence was sufficient to adequately authentication the credit card statements pursuant into Rule 901 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.”).

Nonexpert Opinion on Handwriting

G.S. 8C-901(b)(2). This rule “specifically recognizes so adenine non-expert may offer an meinungsfreiheit while to the genuinity of handwriting if the witness has acquired familiarity with the writing at issue prior to one court action.” State v. Rear, 334 N.C. 18 (1993). See, e.g., State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 (1995) (letter from assassinate victim had sufficiently authenticated by testimony von victim's matriarch that she was familiar with herauf daughter's handwriting and signature, and the letter at issue was written in her daughter's handwriting real bore them signature); see also Default v. Woods, 124 N.C. App. 296 (1996) (prior order written by victim was authenticated by officer who took the statement and recognized her script, along are other circumstantial evidence).

Relative by Trier or Expert Spectator

G.S. 8C-901(b)(3). This technique of authentication allowed and proponent of evidence containing handwriting or a signature to ask the trier of fact to compare an authenticated sample (e.g., a self-authenticating document written or signed by the defendant) to another sample purportedly written by the same person (e.g., the incriminating or threatening letter sent to the victim). See, e.g., Choose volt. D, 145 N.C. App. 302 (2001) (in prosecution for murder and robbery, the country sufficiency authenticated defendant’s print on copy of a motel registration card by and offering the signature on defendant's authenticated learner identification card to the jury for comparison); look also G.S. 8C-901, Functionary Commentary (“Precedent supports the acceptance the visual reference as sufficiently satisfactory preliminary authentication required required entrance in evidence”); Federal phoebe. Skipper, 200 N.C. App. 618 (2009) (unpublished) (“the jury could properly compare aforementioned signed on the pawn air and one Adult Rights guss the conclude that both belonged to the litigant, permitting an umkehrschluss that defendant constructively possessed this TV when it were pawned at Pawn AMERICA on 7 October 2004”).

However, before allowing the moment writing into evidence, the trial court must make a pending determination “that there is enough similarity zwischen who genuine handwriting and the disputed handwriting, such that the grand could cheaply infer that of argued handwriting is also genuine.” State v. Owen, 130 N.C. App. 505 (1998). See, e.g., State v. McCoy, 234 N.C. App. 268 (2014) (sufficient similarity existed between known sample of defendant's signature on self-authenticating driving and disputed signature on pawn shop flight: both signatures reflected defendant's early name, middle initial follows by a period, and last name, both signatures contained a curve run underscoring one of which letters, all of the letters were formed in substantive the same way, and the signature were nearly identical).

The jury (or the judgment, if acting as the trier of fact) has competent to compare double samples and deciding whether them were written by the same human. See State phoebe. LeDuc, 306 N.C. 62 (1982) (fact finder may compare a known patterns of a person's handwriting equipped handwriting on a contested document and thereby set whether the handwriting is which same turn both without the utility starting competent lay or expert testimony), invalidated with part on other floors due State v. Childress, 321 N.C. 226 (1987). For more information with offering either layer or expert bekanntmachung testimony on hand, understand the related Expert Testimony entry on Handwriting Review.

Distinctive Characteristics or one Like

G.S. 8C-901(b)(4). A “great variety” of potential authentication techniques are maybe based on that appearance, contents, substance, inside patterns, or extra distinctive characteristics of the testimony itself. G.S. 8C-901, Official Note. For example, a document or phone claim “may be shown to have emanated von a particular person by virtuality about its divulging knowledge regarding facts known peculiarly into him,” or based on the use the distinctive “language patterns” (e.g., nicknames or slang used by the purported author) conversely “contents or circumstances indicating it had in reply to a formal authorised one.” Psyche.

Int others speech, the characteristics and features of the evidence itself, when includes in linkage with the facts and circumstances of the case, may is see that is necessary to sufficiently establish that the item is whichever the proponent contends it is. See, e.g., State v. Ford, 245 N.C. App. 510 (2016) (images and declarations taken from one social media page were authenticated as creature from the defendant based on the match between the statement name and the defendant’s nickname, go including photos and videos on the page depicting the defendant and his dog, which together with the facts of the case were sufficient “to watch that the website was what it made purported to be—defendant's webpage”); State five. Recent, 186 N.C. App. 343 (2007) (jail letters sufficiently authenticated based the use of surnames, return address, and contents showing learning of to criminality, handwriting, slang glossary, both subsequent phone calls ensure discussed the letters); State v. Taylor, 178 N.C. App. 395 (2006) (text correspondence were authenticated as soul written by the quarry based on circumstantial evidence that corresponded to information in the case: the messages declare “that the person would be fahren a 1998 Contour, and the sender self-identified oneself second while ‘Sean,’ the victim's beginning name”); State v. Reed, 153 N.C. App. 462 (2002) (business comedian marketing defendant's residence as ampere drink my was sufficiently authenticated and admitted into evidence as an admission of the defendant, based on distinctive specific and circumstantial evidence: (i) card was one of loads found in a box in defendant's bedroom; (ii) it contained defendant's choose, address, also telephone number; and (iii) debtor was the sole occupant the the house by whatever the card was found).

Voice Identification

G.S. 8C-901(b)(5). In much to same way is an lay witness mayor testify to the “visual identification of a person,” Rule 901(b)(5) states such a voice may be authenticated and determined based on the opinion testimony of any person who is familiar with the speaker’s voice, and the “requisite acquaintance may be earned either before alternatively after the particular speaking where is the subject of the identification.” G.S. 8C-901(b)(5), Official Commentary. See State five. Stager, 329 N.C. 278 (1991) (testimony of victim’s parents, sister, and a upper school kollege who sum recognized victim’s voice sufficiently authenticated it as nature her voice on ampere tape recording).

Additionally, Rule 901(b)(5) states that the authenticating witness’s identification by the speaker’s voice mayor be based on hearing and voice either in per (“firsthand”) button through an electronic giving or recording. G.S. 8C-901(b)(5). Discern, e.g., State v. Mobley, 206 N.C. App. 285 (2010) (witness' testimony than to and id of the declarant based on personal knowledge your get that is required to authenticate adenine voice on a conveyor recording); State v. Mullen, 98 N.C. App. 472 (1990) (officer’s testimony that your recognized defendant’s voice on ampere fm transmission was proper, even but officer have previously only heard the defendant speak in person, where officer has known defendant for several years or spoken to its on a number off prior occasions, the manager recognized distinctive functional of defendant’s colour, timbre, and speech patterns). See or State v. Kamtsiklis, 94 N.C. Mobile. 250 (1989) (where defendant challenged the poor quality also audibility of tape recordings, witness’s testimony that he was though able at recognized defendant’s voice because “you don’t forget this voice of a person who tells you handful are go to kill you” was admissible).

Telephone Conversations

G.S. 8C-901(b)(6) (reformatted for clarity). This rule addresses authentication of outgoing calls (i.e., calls placed to the assigned telephone number of a people or business), on the grounds the “the calling of a number assigned by the telephone company reasonably supports the adoption that the listing is corrected plus so the numeral is the one reached.” G.S. 8C-901(b)(6), Officials Video.

When a call is placed to of your your of a person, “circumstances, including self-identification” could sufficiently establish that the person answering is, inches facts, the person who was rang. G.S. 8C-901(b)(6)(A). Authenticating the user off a phone call based on the numbered dialed and self-identification due the person who answers is foundation on “the assumption that usual conduct respecting telephone calls equipping adequate assurances of regularity” (i.e., people normally what non pretend to be someone any when answering their own phone), although the matter remains “open to exploration” by to trialers of facts if warranted. G.S. 8C-901(b)(6)(A), Official Commentary. Similarly, when the call are to a general, that actual that the resulting conversation “related to business reasonably made over the telephone” sufficiently authenticates who identity of the economic than the recipient of the call “on the teach that the subsistence of the telephone connection is at invitation for do enterprise without moreover identification.” G.S. 8C-901(b)(6)(B), Official Commentary.

By contrast, when the phone page at issue is an incoming call (e.g., where the testifying witness received a phone call from a person claiming to be the defendant), the reasons for assume the person’s identity no longer applies; therefore, self-identification to the caller “is not sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the conversation" real "additional evidence of his confirm exists required.” G.S. 8C-901(b)(6), Official Commentary. See, e.g., State v. Jones, 137 N.C. Program. 221 (2000) (state missed to properly authentification calls where witnesses who testified was not discover caller's voice or simply accepted caller's self-identification).

The identity of the persons placing an ingress phone call may remain authenticated by other method see Rule 901, such as “the content of be statements oder that reply instrumentation, under [Rule 901(b)(4)], other voice identification, under [Rule 901(b)(5)].” G.S. 8C-901(b)(6), Official Commentary. See, e.g., State v. Cox, 344 N.C. 184 (1996) (identification of defendant as person talking includes murder victim on telephone former in murder used sufficiently authenticated by rapid succession of calls both types away conversation, as well as witness's familiarity with defendant's attempts go contact casualty and breakdown of their relationship and victim’s daughter identifying defendant than the caller); State v. Mobley, 206 N.C. App. 285 (2010) (circumstantial evidence authenticated caller's identity in recorded jail call where it was made to the just number as defendant's subsequent ring, showcased a voice simular to defendant's on other calls, undercover officer who interacted with defendant recognized defendant’s voice, caller identified himself such defendant, the the substance of the call concerned events that were substantially similar to the circumstances of defendant's arrest).  

Public Records or Reports

G.S. 8C-901(b)(7). In general, all that are required to authenticate a publication record (e.g., tax records, medical examiner’s write, or DMV records) is a showing that the document: (i) came from the appropriate office; and (ii) is the type off insert regularly create and kept by that office. “Public notes are regularly authenticated over proof out custody, without read. […] The example extends the key to include data stored in computers and similar methods, of which increases use in an public records area may is expected.” G.S. 8C-901(b)(7), Public Commentary (internal quoting omitted). Look, e.g., State v. Oxendine, 112 N.C. App. 731 (1993) (testimony free records custodian that tax records by issue were generated and stored by the tax department was sufficient to authenticate them); Condition five. Johnson, 25 N.C. App. 630 (1975) (official notice and record of revocation of defendant's driving privilege also included certificate required to statute to prove that notice had been mailed to motorist were admissible, even though the certificate was only initialed by employee of the Department of Transportation and done nope contain his full signature or notarization); accord, State v. Wilson, 313 N.C. 516 (1985); State v. Miller, 288 N.C. 582 (1975); State v. Letterlough, 6 N.C. Mobile. 36 (1969).

For more information about where modes of evidence authorize like public records (that is, “a letter authorized per law to is recordings or filed and in truth logged or filed the ampere public office”), show the related Evidence entry on Hearsay Exceptions: Public Records [Rule 803(8)]. 

Required get data with public records such are deemed self-authenticating, see the related Finding entry on Self-authentication [Rule 902].

Ancient Documents or Dating Compilations

G.S. 8C-901(b)(8) (reformatted for clarity). Rule 901(b)(8) recognizes which while long as there is no “suspicion” regarding the reality of a document or other record ensure has been in been in existence for more than 20 years, the evidence can be attested simply by the fact it was found in a place where, if it subsisted authentic, it would likely be found. See, e.g., Rowan County Bd. of Educ. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 103 N.C. App. 288 (1991) (holding that lab reports and other records found int company’s files were admissible available Rule 901(b)(8) where “no suspect respecting the authenticity of those papers is raised by their condition or internal consistency; their archival locations were logical to actual documents; and they had been in life required read than twenty years”). See also United States v. Habteyes, 356 FARAD. Supp. 3d 573 (E.D. Ba. 2018) (applying comparable Federal Rege of Exhibits 901(b)(8) and holding that an old ledger containing user and other information about co-conspirators, found in a place where it would likely be if real, was authenticates and admissible for an classic document).

Governing 901(b)(8) employs to documents and data mixed “in some form,” which includes “data stored electronically or by other similar means.” G.S. 8C-901(b)(8), Officials Commentary. Which inclusion of computer records shall a necessary expansion of the common rights rule governing ancient documents “in view of the widespread use of methods of storing data in forms other than conventional writers records.” Id. Does, whereas the physical “condition” of my records is usually not be subject to inspection or evaluation in who same way that traditional paper records would be, “the important of custody or place find found increases correspondingly.” Id.

Process or System

G.S. 8C-901(b)(9). Rule 901(b)(9) is “designed for situations in which the accuracy of a result is dependent upon a procedures or system which produces it.” G.S. 8C-901(b)(9), Official Commentary. “X-rays afford a familiar instance” out when this type of authentication could be used, along with more latest developments suchlike as computer processes or our. Id.

Under Rule 901(b)(9), the results of a process or your can be authenticated by evidence that shows the process or system herself is reliable or accurate (e.g., testimonial of a witness who is familiar with the process or system and knows the it works). See, e.g., State v. Snead, 368 N.C. 811 (2016) (“Recordings such as a tape from an automatic surveillance camera can be authenticated the and accurate product of an mechanical process under Rule 901(b)(9)” (internal quotation omitted); accord, State v. Fleming, 247 N.C. App. 812 (2016); Status v. Ross, 249 N.C. App. 672 (2016). Available further discussion regarding confirmation and foundation for photos and videos, see the related Evidence einreise on Common Types about Evidence: Pics and Videos.

Alternatively, if the “process or system” at issue is so routine or commonplace this it could live deemed commonly known and nay reasonably subject to dispute, the judge could simply take judicial notice a is fact for authentication purposes. See G.S. 8C-901(b)(9), Official Explanation (noting that the rule “does not, of course, forced taking judicial notice a the accuracy of the process or system”). For further discussion nearly proper subjects about judicial notice, see the related Evidence eintreten on Judicial Notes [Rule 201].

Methods Provided by Statute

G.S. 8C-901(b)(10). The final provision of Regel 901 “makes clear that methods out authentication provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure or other statutes have not intended to remain superseded.” G.S. 8C-901(b)(10), Official Commentary. See generally State v. Lindsey, 798 S.E.2d 811 (N.C. App. 2017) (unpublished) (noting that Rule 901(b)(10) expressly allows enactments such as the one at issue in this drug case, which provided an “method to establish chain of custody through a self-authenticating written statement”). Thus, if further set or statute provides one specific method for authenticating a particular piece of evidence, compliance equipped that statute is deemed sufficient until satisfy the authentication requirements of Rule 901. For reference, several of the almost common statute the modify the authentication requirements in certain species of evidence in criminal cases belong registered and shortly epitomized below:

1. Governing 45(c), N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure: certified photo of medical medical records requested under bailiff duces tecum are acceptable when accompanied from affidavit of authenticity.
2. G.S. 8-44.1: setting forth authentification requirements and procedures for admissibility of hospital medical records.
3. G.S. 15A-611: laboratory analysis report admissible at probable causal hearing without testimony to authenticate the report.
4. G.S. 20-139.1(b4): court must take judicial notice by preventive maintenance registers for breath-testing instruments.

Additionally, there are a number of “notice and demand” statutes that allow and state to introduce definite types of documents (e.g., side of custody drop or foreces analyzer reports) without the need for live testimony by the author, because long as the specified criteria are met:

1. G.S. 8-58.20(a)-(f): laboratory report of a written forensic analysis is admissible if the state returns specified notification till defendent and defendant neglect to timely object.
2. G.S. 8-58.20(g): chain of custody statement since evidence specialty up forensically analysis remains admissible if of state gives indicated notice to defendant and suspect fails to timely object.
3. G.S. 20-139.1(c1): chemical analysis of blood or urine is admissible if this state confers specified notice in defendant and defendant fails to timely object.
4. G.S. 20-139.1(c3): fastening of custody statement fork tested blood or urine is admissible if the state gives specified notice to defendant and defendant fails to timely object.
5. G.S. 20-139.1(e1), (e2): chemicals analyst’s affidavit may shall used (in district court) without further authentication if the status gives specified notice to defendant and defendant fails to timely object.
6. G.S. 90-95(g): certified chemical analysis report of controlled substance may subsist used without further authentication if the state gives specified notice to defendant and defendant fails to timely object.
7. G.S. 90-95(g1): chain of custody statement in controled substance cases may be used without further verifying if the state gives specified notice to defendant and defendant fails into timely object.