Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 9-411 (2026)

Secondary evidence of writings — When admissible. 

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

Secondary evidence of writings — When admissible. 

There can be no evidence of the contents of a writing other than the writing itself, except in the following cases:

1.  When the original has been lost or destroyed; in which case proof of the loss or destruction must first be made.
2.  When the original is in the possession of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and he fails to produce it after reasonable notice.
3.  When the original is a record or other document in the custody of a public officer.
4.  When the original has been recorded, and a certified copy of the record is made evidence by this code or other statutes.
5.  When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the evidence sought from them is only the general result of the whole.
6.  When the original consists of medical charts or records of hospitals licensed in this state, and the provisions of section 9-420, Idaho Code, have been followed.
In the cases mentioned in subdivisions 3, 4 and 6, a copy of the original, or of the record, must be produced; in those mentioned in subdivisions 1 and 2, either a copy or oral evidence of the contents.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1951–2014 · leading case: State v. White, 644 P.2d 318 (Idaho 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. White, 644 P.2d 318 (Idaho 1982). · cites it 30× “Once the original evidence has withstood a hearsay objection, secondary evidence of that original does not constitute hearsay and will be admissible as long as it meets the requirements set out in I.C. § 9-411." Secondary evidence, however, does not contain the indicia of…”
Idaho First Nat'l Bank v. Wells, 596 P.2d 429 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code § 9-411 is the codification of the best evidence rule in Idaho.”
Curiel v. Mingo, 597 P.2d 26 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 5× “Here, at the time Mingo offered Exhibit K in evidence, Curiel did not object upon the ground that, as a photocopy, foundation for its admissibility was not made pursuant to I.C. § 9-411 and I.C. § 9-417. This point was apparently first raised by the appellant at the hearing on…”
St. Benedict's Hosp. v. Cnty. of Twin Falls, 686 P.2d 88 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “However, I.C. § 9-411 provides that secondary evidence of a writing is admissible if the original “has been lost or destroyed” or if the original “is in the possession of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and he fails to produce it after reasonable notice.”
Obray v. Mitchell, 567 P.2d 1284 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 2× “*539 With reference to the first two exhibits, I.C. § 9-411(5) indicates that secondary evidence of original documents is admissible where the originals are so numerous that they cannot be examined in court without great loss of time.”
State v. Barlow, 746 P.2d 1032 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “See also I.C. § 9-411(5) (permitting use of summaries as evidence "[w]hen the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the evidence sought from them is only the general result of the whole").”
Russ Ballard & Fam. Achievement Inst. v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc., 548 P.2d 72 (Idaho 1976). · cites it 2× “That portion of Irick’s deposition describing the agreement was properly excluded by the trial court because it was not the best evidence of the agreement nor did it fall within any of the exceptions to I.C. § 9-411. Thus, there is no competent evidence in the record regarding…”
State v. Rosencrantz, 714 P.2d 93 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “” The tape recording itself was not placed in evidence but was made available to the defense. Rosencrantz argues that the tape recording was the “best evidence” of the interview and that it alone was admissible.”
Smith v. Smith, 511 P.2d 294 (Idaho 1973). · cites it 2× “2 I.C. § 9-411 provides in part: “There can be no evidence of the contents of a writing other than the writing itself, except in the following cases: 1.”
Dawson v. Olson, 543 P.2d 499 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 4× “The trustworthiness of the simplified map is ensured by the right of the opposing party to examine it and compare it with the original, and to cross examine the expert who prepared it.”
Golden Condor, Inc. v. Bell, 678 P.2d 72 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 9-411 embodies what is commonly called the.”
Jackson v. Blue Flame Gas Co., 412 P.2d 418 (Idaho 1966). · cites it 2× “Additionally, this assignment of error is en *400 titled to no consideration here, because it is not supported by brief or argument. Plaintiffs’ exhibits 4 and 5 are merely summaries of information already before the court in plaintiffs’ exhibit 3 which was admitted.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 9-411(1) — 1 case
State v. White, 644 P.2d 318 (Idaho 1982). “Once the original evidence has withstood a hearsay objection, secondary evidence of that original does not constitute hearsay and will be admissible as long as it meets the requirements set out in I.C. § 9-411." Secondary evidence, however, does not contain the indicia of…”
— Idaho Code § 9-411(5) — 4 cases
State v. White, 644 P.2d 318 (Idaho 1982). “Once the original evidence has withstood a hearsay objection, secondary evidence of that original does not constitute hearsay and will be admissible as long as it meets the requirements set out in I.C. § 9-411." Secondary evidence, however, does not contain the indicia of…”
Obray v. Mitchell, 567 P.2d 1284 (Idaho 1977). “*539 With reference to the first two exhibits, I.C. § 9-411(5) indicates that secondary evidence of original documents is admissible where the originals are so numerous that they cannot be examined in court without great loss of time.”
State v. Barlow, 746 P.2d 1032 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “See also I.C. § 9-411(5) (permitting use of summaries as evidence "[w]hen the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the evidence sought from them is only the general result of the whole").”
Dawson v. Olson, 543 P.2d 499 (Idaho 1975). “The trustworthiness of the simplified map is ensured by the right of the opposing party to examine it and compare it with the original, and to cross examine the expert who prepared it.”
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.