Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 9-315 (2026)

Proof of other official documents. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Proof of other official documents. 

Other official documents may be proved as follows:

1.  Acts of the executive of this state, by the records; and of the United States, by the records of the departments of the United States, certified by an officer or employee of those departments, showing that the document is a true and correct copy of the original held by that department. They may also be proved by public documents, printed by the order of the legislature or congress, or either house thereof.
2.  The proceedings of the legislature of this state, or of congress, by the journals of those bodies respectively, or either house thereof, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk, or printed by their order.
3.  The acts of the executive, or the proceedings of the legislature, of another state or territory in the same manner.
4.  The acts of the executive, or the proceedings of the legislature of a foreign country, by journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such, or by a copy certified under the seal of the country or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof, in some public act of the executive of the United States.
5.  Acts of a municipal corporation of this state, or of a board or department thereof, by a copy, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book, published by the authority of such corporation.
6.  Documents of any other class in this state, by the original, or by a copy, certified by the legal keeper thereof.
7.  Documents of any other class from another state or territory, by the original, or by a copy, certified by the legal keeper thereof, in such a manner that the court is satisfied that the document is, in all likelihood, a copy of an official document from another state or territory.
8.  Documents of any other class in a foreign country, by the original, or by a copy, certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a certificate under seal, of the country or sovereign, that the document is a valid and subsisting document of such country, and that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original.
9.  Documents in the departments of the United States government, by the certificate of the legal custodian thereof.
10.  The above requirements notwithstanding, if in the discretion of the court the document, or copy thereof, whichever is being submitted for admission into evidence, is an unaltered official document of any agency or department of the state of Idaho or of any other state, then such document may be admitted into evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1952–2000 · leading case: State v. Kellogg, 636 P.2d 750 (Idaho 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kellogg, 636 P.2d 750 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 18× “I.C. § 9-315(1) clearly requires that proof of *758 " Acts .”
State v. Norton, 11 P.3d 494 (Idaho Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “Norton argues that the authentication of an official fingerprint card is governed by I.C. § 9-315(6) and that, according to I.”
State v. Martinez, 643 P.2d 555 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The court in Poison reversed a persistent violator determination because the fingerprint card was not properly authenticated under I.C. § 9-315(6). In Poison there was nothing in the record to establish the county recorder as the keeper of fingerprint records, by whom proper…”
State v. Wendler, 360 P.2d 697 (Idaho 1961). · cites it 4× “§ 9-315 — which we do not decide — no subpoena was sought by the defendant to procure attendance of the officers or agents of the department, who made the report or finding or furnished the information used therein, for cross-examination. Further, defendant was not prejudiced by…”
Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. V-1 Oil Co., 412 P.2d 581 (Idaho 1966). · cites it 4× “However, that section of the statute must be construed in pari materia with I.C. § 9-315 which inter alia, provides that acts of the United States may be proved “by the records of the departments of the United States, certified by the heads of those departments respectively,”…”
State v. Polson, 448 P.2d 229 (Idaho 1968). · cites it 2× “There is nothing in the record to establish the county recorder of Twin Falls County as the keeper of the fingerprint records, by whom such certification should be made under the provisions of I.”
State v. Polson, 478 P.2d 292 (Idaho 1970). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 9-315. Appellant lastly contends that the recidivist statute presently in force in Idaho violates constitutional standards against double jeopardy, ex post facto laws, cruel and unusual punishment and does not square with the requirements of due process, equal protection…”
Boise City v. Better Homes, Inc., 243 P.2d 303 (Idaho 1952). “§ 9-315, I.C., provides: “ * * * official documents may be proved as follows: í}C s[í íjí ijc jJ? 5}c “Acts of a municipal corporation of this state, or of ¿ board or department thereof, by a copy, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed 'book, published by the…”
— Idaho Code § 9-315(1) — 1 case
State v. Kellogg, 636 P.2d 750 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 9-315(1) clearly requires that proof of *758 " Acts .”
— Idaho Code § 9-315(6) — 3 cases
State v. Norton, 11 P.3d 494 (Idaho Ct. App. 2000). “Norton argues that the authentication of an official fingerprint card is governed by I.C. § 9-315(6) and that, according to I.”
State v. Martinez, 643 P.2d 555 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “The court in Poison reversed a persistent violator determination because the fingerprint card was not properly authenticated under I.C. § 9-315(6). In Poison there was nothing in the record to establish the county recorder as the keeper of fingerprint records, by whom proper…”
State v. Polson, 448 P.2d 229 (Idaho 1968). “There is nothing in the record to establish the county recorder of Twin Falls County as the keeper of the fingerprint records, by whom such certification should be made under the provisions of I.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.