Printable Format60-464. Authentication or identification of evidence; examples. (a) In general. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
(b) Examples. The following are examples only, not a complete list, of evidence that satisfies the requirement:
(1) Testimony of a witness with knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.
(2) Nonexpert opinion about handwriting. A nonexpert's opinion that handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation.
(3) Comparison by an expert witness or the trier of fact. A comparison with an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact.
(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.
(5) Opinion about a voice. An opinion identifying a person's voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.
(6) Evidence about a telephone conversation. For a telephone conversation, evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time to:
(A) A particular person, if circumstances, including self-identification, show that the person answering was the one called; or
(B) a particular business, if the call was made to a business and the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
(7) Evidence about public records. Evidence that:
(A) A document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or
(B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.
(8) Evidence about ancient documents or data compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:
(A) Is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;
(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and
(C) is at least 30 years old when offered.
(9) Evidence about a process or system. Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result.
(10) Methods provided by a statute or rule. Any method of authentication or identification allowed by law or a rule prescribed by the supreme court.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-464; L. 2021, ch. 65, § 2; July 1.
Source or prior law:
G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 367; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 364; R.S. 1923, 60-2849.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Warning: Failure to Counter an Objection may be Hazardous to Your Case," Vol. IX, No. 2, J.K.T.L.A. 23 (1985).
"Admissibility of Electronic Information," Cecilia K. Garrett, 71 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 33 (2002).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-2849.
1. Authenticity of writing may be proved by indirect or circumstantial evidence under certain circumstances. State v. Milum, 202 Kan. 196, 197, 198, 447 P.2d 801.
2. Cited; requirements discussed in relationship to K.S.A. 60-460. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Berge, 205 Kan. 755, 764, 473 P.2d 48.
3. Sufficient foundation for admission of incriminating note and cards into evidence. State v. Rives, 220 Kan. 141, 143, 551 P.2d 788.
4. Applied in determining K.S.A. 60-460 inapplicable to support finding by court of ownership of automobile. Motors Insurance Corporation v. Richardson, 220 Kan. 288, 290, 552 P.2d 894.
5. Although authenticity of document requirements not met, defendant must show harm or prejudice by error of admission. State v. Waufle, 9 Kan. App. 2d 68, 76, 77, 673 P.2d 109 (1983).
6. Cited; improper admission of telephone records under K.S.A. 60-460(m) affecting defendant's credibility harmless where other bases for doubt existed. State v. Wilson, 11 Kan. App. 2d 504, 508, 511, 728 P.2d 1332 (1986).
7. Cited; refusal to allow into evidence letter to defendant from fellow defendant written while both incarcerated examined. State v. Dunn, 243 Kan. 414, 427, 758 P.2d 718 (1988).
8. Documents obtained through a request for production of documents may, in the court's discretion, be relied upon as authentic for purposes of a summary judgment motion because the method in which they are obtained lends them credibility. Watco Companies, Inc. v. Campbell, 52 Kan. App. 2d 602, 607-610, 371 P.3d 360 (2016).
9. Audio recordings of jail phone calls qualify as writings under K.S.A. 60-401, and admission of such recordings is governed by K.S.A. 60-464. State v. Jenkins, 311 Kan. 39, 50, 455 P.3d 779 (2020).