Print Version
Previous PageFile uploaded: 6/10/2019

Rule 901. ?Authenticatingor Identifying Evidence.


(a)      InGeneral. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying anitem of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support afinding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.


(b)      Examples.The following are examples only ? not a complete list ? of evidence thatsatisfies the requirement:

(b)(1)   Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge.Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.


(b)(2)   Nonexpert OpinionAbout Handwriting. A nonexpert?s opinionthat handwriting is genuine, based on a familiaritywith it that was not acquired for the current litigation.


(b)(3)   Comparison by an Expert Witness or the Trierof Fact. A comparison with an authenticated specimen byan expert witness or the trier of fact.


(b)(4)   Distinctive Characteristics and the Like.The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, orother distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.


(b)(5)   Opinion About aVoice. An opinion identifying a person?s voice ? whether heard firsthand orthrough mechanical or electronic transmission or recording ? based on hearingthe voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the allegedspeaker.


(b)(6)   Evidence About aTelephone Conversation. For a telephone conversation, evidence that a callwas made to the number assigned at the time to:

(b)(6)(A)  a particular person, ifcircumstances, including self-identification, show that the person answeringwas the one called; or


(b)(6)(B)  a particular business, if thecall was made to a business and the call related to business reasonablytransacted over the telephone.


(b)(7)   Evidence AboutPublic Records. Evidence that: 

(b)(7)(A)  a document was recorded orfiled in a public office as authorized by law; or


(b)(7)(B)  a purported public record orstatement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.


(b)(8)   Evidence AboutAncient Documents or Data Compilations. For a document or data compilation,evidence that it:

(b)(8)(A)  is in a condition thatcreates no suspicion about its authenticity;


(b)(8)(B)  was in a place where, ifauthentic, it would likely be; and


(b)(8)(C)  is at least 20 years old whenoffered.


(b)(9)   Evidence About aProcess or System. Evidence describing a process orsystem and showing that it produces an accurate result.


(b)(10) Methods Provided by a Statute or Rule. Any method of authentication or identification allowed by court ruleor statute of this state.



2011 Advisory Committee Note. ?The language of this rule has been amended as part of therestyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to makestyle and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes areintended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in anyruling on evidence admissibility. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim.


Original Advisory Committee Note.? Subdivision (b)(2) is in accord with Statev. Freshwater, 30 Utah 442, 85 Pac. 447 (1906). Subdivision (b)(8) is comparable with Rule 67, Utah Rules of Evidence(1971), except that the former rule imposed a 30-year requirement. Subdivision(b)(10) is an adaptation of subdivision (10) in thecomparable federal rules to conform to state practice.