A. 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 it to be. B. The following are illustrative examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this Code:
1. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be; 2. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation; 3. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated; 4. Appearance, content, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics taken in conjunction with circumstances; 5. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand 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; 6. 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: a. in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or b. 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; 7. 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; 8. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form: a. is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, b. was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and c. has been in existence twenty (20) years or more at the time it is offered; 9. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result; or 10. Any method of authentication or identification provided by statute or by rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 901, eff. Oct. 1, 1978.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case:
Hooper v. State, 947 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
Hooper v. State, 947 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “[27] 12 O.S.1991, § 2901(A); Hightower v. State, 672 P.”
Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Appellant concedes that under the Evidence Code, even if a writing is admissible under some exception to the hearsay rule, it must still be sufficiently authenticated, see 12 O.S.2001, § 2901, and the cases he relies on reiterate this requirement.”
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “12 O.S.2011, § 2901(B)(1). The "chain of custody" concept guards against substitution of, or tampering with, physical evidence between the time it is found and the time it is analyzed.”
Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, Appellant gives her name, address and policy number over the phone. Appellant also allows Pavatt to converse with the Prudential Insurance office, and she identifies Pavatt as her insurance agent.”
Fixico v. State, 735 P.2d 580 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
· cites it 5× “12 O.S.1981, § 2901. An exhibit’s identity or authenticity, sufficient for its admission into evidence, is thus satisfied “by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be.”
Hightower v. State, 672 P.2d 671 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
· cites it 3× “12 O.S.1981, § 2901(A). The evidence may be direct or circumstantial.”
Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See 12 O.S.1991, § 2901(B)(1) & (4). ¶ 85 Appellant next claims the trial court improperly allowed Lawrence Kirkendoll to testify that, at Yancey Douglas's trial, he had identified Douglas as the person he saw with Appellant after Smith and Farrow had been shot.”
Grant v. State, 2002 OK CR 36 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “See 12 O.S.2001, § 2901. Alternatively, the parties may stipulate to the authenticity of the statements and allow the introduction without objection.”
Pennington v. State, 913 P.2d 1356 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “; 12 O.S.1991, § 2901(B)(4); Hightower v. State, 672 P.”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bednar, 441 P.3d 91 (Okla. 2019).
“Respondent failed to authenticate it as required by 12 O.S.2011, § 2901. The Trial Panel concluded: Of all the grievances mounted against Respondent, these are perhaps the most egregious of the egregious.”
Crawford v. State, 840 P.2d 627 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
“See 12 O.S.1981, § 2901(B)(4). We find the conversation with Ms.”
Short v. State, 1999 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
“12 O.S.1991, § 2901. As for the relevance of the photographs, Jay Brown testified that he observed Appellant write derogatory comments and threats about Brenda G.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2901(A): 7 cases
Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
“Appellant concedes that under the Evidence Code, even if a writing is admissible under some exception to the hearsay rule, it must still be sufficiently authenticated, see 12 O.S.2001, § 2901, and the cases he relies on reiterate this requirement.”
Hooper v. State, 947 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
“[27] 12 O.S.1991, § 2901(A); Hightower v. State, 672 P.”
Hightower v. State, 672 P.2d 671 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2901(A). The evidence may be direct or circumstantial.”
Fixico v. State, 735 P.2d 580 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2901. An exhibit’s identity or authenticity, sufficient for its admission into evidence, is thus satisfied “by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2901(B)(1): 5 cases
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
“12 O.S.2011, § 2901(B)(1). The "chain of custody" concept guards against substitution of, or tampering with, physical evidence between the time it is found and the time it is analyzed.”
Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000).
“See 12 O.S.1991, § 2901(B)(1) & (4). ¶ 85 Appellant next claims the trial court improperly allowed Lawrence Kirkendoll to testify that, at Yancey Douglas's trial, he had identified Douglas as the person he saw with Appellant after Smith and Farrow had been shot.”
Fixico v. State, 735 P.2d 580 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2901. An exhibit’s identity or authenticity, sufficient for its admission into evidence, is thus satisfied “by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2901(B)(2): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2901(B)(3): 1 case
Fixico v. State, 735 P.2d 580 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2901. An exhibit’s identity or authenticity, sufficient for its admission into evidence, is thus satisfied “by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2901(B)(4): 4 cases
Pennington v. State, 913 P.2d 1356 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
“; 12 O.S.1991, § 2901(B)(4); Hightower v. State, 672 P.”
Crawford v. State, 840 P.2d 627 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
“See 12 O.S.1981, § 2901(B)(4). We find the conversation with Ms.”
Hightower v. State, 672 P.2d 671 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2901(A). The evidence may be direct or circumstantial.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2901(B)(5): 4 cases
Hooper v. State, 947 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
“[27] 12 O.S.1991, § 2901(A); Hightower v. State, 672 P.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2901(B)(6): 1 case
Hooper v. State, 947 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
“[27] 12 O.S.1991, § 2901(A); Hightower v. State, 672 P.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2901(B)(6)(b): 1 case
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.