(a) If any business, institution, member of a profession or calling, or any department or agency of government, in the regular course of business or activity has kept or recorded any memorandum, writing, entry, print, representation, X ray or combination thereof, of any act, transaction, occurrence or event, and in the regular course of business has caused any or all of the same to be recorded, copied or reproduced by any photographic, photostatic, microfilm, microcard, miniature photographic, or other process which accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for so reproducing the original, the original may be destroyed in the regular course of business unless held in a custodial or fiduciary capacity or unless its preservation is required by law. Such reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding whether the original is in existence or not and an enlargement or facsimile of such reproduction is likewise admissible in evidence if the original reproduction is in existence and available for inspection under direction of court. The introduction of a reproduced record, enlargement or facsimile, does not preclude admission of the original.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply to records stored on any form of permanent, computer-readable media, such as a CD-ROM, if the medium is not subject to erasure or alteration. Nonerasable, computer-readable storage media may be used for preservation duplicates, as defined in G.S. 132-8.2, or for the preservation of permanently valuable records as provided in G.S. 121-5(d). (1951, ch. 262, s. 1; 1977, ch. 569; 1999-131, s. 1; 1999-456, s. 47(a); 2011-326, s. 13(b).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1960–1983 · leading case:
Matter of Arthur, 231 S.E.2d 614 (N.C. 1977).
Matter of Arthur, 231 S.E.2d 614 (N.C. 1977).
“8-37 (Automobile Ownership) ; G.S. 8-45.1 (Photographic Reproduction Admissible) ; G.”
Pinner v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 298 S.E.2d 749 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).
“He acknowledges that photocopies are admissible as originals pursuant to G.S. 8-45.1, but argues that the *260 foundation here for their introduction as business records was insufficient.”
State v. Passmore, 245 S.E.2d 107 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “According to G.S. 8-45.1 a photostatic copy of a business record, “when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial .”
State v. Shumaker, 111 S.E.2d 878 (N.C. 1960).
“Under the North Carolina Uniform Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records Act (G.S. 8-45.1, et seq.), any photo *681 graphic, photostatic, or microfilm is as admissible in evidence as the original itself.”
Matter of Arthur, 218 S.E.2d 869 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).
“8-37 (Automobile Ownership) ; G.S. 8-45.1 (Photographic Reproduction Admissible) ; G.”
Sutton v. Sutton, 242 S.E.2d 644 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
“As such, it was clearly intended to serve as proof of its contents. Thus a photostatic copy of the affidavit was not admissible under the rule without first accounting for nonproduction, 2 Stansbury, supra, §§ 192-193, or showing that it qualified as a business or public record,…”
Jones v. Metro. Life Ins., 169 S.E.2d 6 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 3× “2 was admissible by virtue of G.S. 8-45.1, pertinent portions of which provide as follows: “If any business * * * or any department or agency of government, in the regular course of business or activity has kept or recorded any memorandum, writing, entry, print, representation…”
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.