(1) The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
(2) By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
(a) Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be;
(b) Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation;
(c) Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated;
(d) Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances;
(e) Identification of a voice, whether heard first-hand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker;
(f) Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if (i) in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or (ii) in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone;
(g) Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept;
(h) Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (i) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (ii) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (iii) has been in existence thirty years or more at the time it is offered;
(i) Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result; and
(j) Any method of authentication or identification provided by act of the Legislature or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court which are not in conflict with laws governing such matters.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
73
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
State v. Newman, 300 Neb. 770 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Newman, 300 Neb. 770 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 5× “According to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 2016), "[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”
State v. Casterline, 878 N.W.2d 38 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 6× “901, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 2008), does not impose a high hurdle for authentication or identification.”
State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 7× “If the proponent’s showing is sufficient to support a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be, the proponent has satisfied the requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 2016). 12.”
State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 6× “901, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 2016), requires authentication or identification of evidence suf- ficient to support a finding that a matter is what the proponent claims as a condition precedent for admission.”
State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “901(1), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 2016).”
O'Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 2016) lists, by way of illustration, 10 means of adequately authenticating a document.”
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 3× “9 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Oldson, 884 N.W.2d 10 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “901, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 2008), lists by way of illustration 10 means of adequately authenticat- ing a document, none of which directly corresponds to the cor- roboration argument made by Oldson in this appeal.”
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “53 Henry did not seem to dispute at trial that the text messages were accurately transcribed from the cell phone numbers iden- tified in the exhibits, other than to the extent he asserted “text spoofing” could misidentify the sending cell phone number.”
AVG Partners I v. Genesis Health Clubs, 307 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 3× “When AVG offered exhibits 116 and 122 into evidence, Genesis objected on numerous grounds, including that they failed to comply with the authenticity requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-901 and 27-902 (Reissue 2016), that founda- tion was incomplete under Neb.”
State v. Aguilar, 683 N.W.2d 349 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 5× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 1995) provides: (1) The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”
State v. Jacobson, 728 N.W.2d 613 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 5× “” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901(1) — 12 cases
State v. Casterline, 878 N.W.2d 38 (Neb. 2016).
“901, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 2008), does not impose a high hurdle for authentication or identification.”
AVG Partners I v. Genesis Health Clubs, 307 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2020).
“When AVG offered exhibits 116 and 122 into evidence, Genesis objected on numerous grounds, including that they failed to comply with the authenticity requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-901 and 27-902 (Reissue 2016), that founda- tion was incomplete under Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901(2) — 5 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901(2)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Jacobson, 728 N.W.2d 613 (Neb. 2007).
“” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901(2)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932 (Neb. 2017).
“If the proponent’s showing is sufficient to support a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be, the proponent has satisfied the requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 2016). 12.”
State v. Jacobson, 728 N.W.2d 613 (Neb. 2007).
“” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901(2)(e) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901(2)(i) — 2 cases
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.