§ 6103. Proof of official records.
(a) General rule.--An official record kept within this Commonwealth by any court, magisterial district
judge or other government unit, or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose,
may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having the legal custody of the record, or by that officer's deputy, and accompanied
by a certificate that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by
any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties with respect
to the government unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of that
office, or if there is no such officer, by:
(1) The Department of State, in the case of any Commonwealth agency.
(2) The clerk of the court of common pleas of the judicial district embracing any county
in which the government unit has jurisdiction, in the case of any government unit
other than a Commonwealth agency.
(b) Lack of record.--A written statement that after an examination of the records of the government unit
no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records designated
by the statement, authenticated as provided in subsection (a), is admissible as evidence
that the records contain no such records or entry.
(Nov. 30, 2004, P.L.1618, No.207, eff. 60 days)
2004 Amendment. Act 207 amended subsec. (a). See section 29 of Act 207 in the appendix to this title
for special provisions relating to construction of law.
Cross References. Section 6103 is referred to in section 6104 of this title; sections 1378, 1380, 1516,
1550, 3753 of Title 75 (Vehicles).
Notes of Decisions
D'ALESSANDRO v. Pennsylvania State Police, 937 A.2d 404 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 4× “] *413 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103. The parties have no disagreement with the Commonwealth Court's finding below that the police report was properly authenticated, but rather the parties quarrel over whether the report meets the standards set forth in Section 6104 of the Judicial Code,…”
Bergen v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 785 A.2d 157 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 3× “§ 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records) and may reproduce such documents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa. C.S. § 6103 (relating to proof of official records).”
Scott v. Com., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 291 (Pa. 2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 1550(d) provides that the admission into evidence of an electronically, transmitted conviction report from another state, which PennDOT certifies pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103, constitutes prima facie proof of the facts and adjudication contained in that conviction report.”
Shapiro v. State Bd. of Acct., 856 A.2d 864 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Rather, at 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103(a), Pennsylvania sets forth separate rules for the admissibility of official records: An official record kept within this Commonwealth by any court, district justice or other government unit, or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may…”
Cotter v. Commonwealth, 703 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 5× “Since we agree that DOT’s actions were insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 6103 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103, we must reverse the trial court’s decision.”
Hudson v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 830 A.2d 594 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
“42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6103, 6109. 3 .Form DL-26 provides in pertinent part: It is my duty, as a police officer, to inform you that if you refuse to submit to the chemical test your operating privilege will be suspended for a period of one year.”
Alfred v. Braxton, 659 A.2d 1040 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
“Father asserts that the record he sought to introduce was self-authenticating or properly authenticated pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6103 and 6104. *385 We need not decide this issue because Mother, in fact, testified that she was not lawfully in the United States.”
Richards v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 767 A.2d 1133 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The packet of documents was purportedly signed and sealed by the Secretary of Transportation and the Director of Bureau Licensing and purportedly certified in compliance with 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6103 2 and 6109. At the hearing, Richards did not present any evidence.”
First Ward Repub. Club of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 11 A.3d 38 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
“” In order to determine whether the Act 48 incident reports were admissible pursuant to the hearsay exception for official records, we must examine Sections 6103 and 6104 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6103 and 6104. 11 Pursuant to *45 those sections of the Judicial Code,…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6103(a) — 21 cases
D'ALESSANDRO v. Pennsylvania State Police, 937 A.2d 404 (Pa. 2007).
“] *413 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103. The parties have no disagreement with the Commonwealth Court's finding below that the police report was properly authenticated, but rather the parties quarrel over whether the report meets the standards set forth in Section 6104 of the Judicial Code,…”
Shapiro v. State Bd. of Acct., 856 A.2d 864 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
“Rather, at 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103(a), Pennsylvania sets forth separate rules for the admissibility of official records: An official record kept within this Commonwealth by any court, district justice or other government unit, or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6103(a)(2) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6103(b) — 3 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.