§ 6109. Photographic copies of business and public records.
(a) Short title of section.--This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Photographic Copies of
Business and Public Records as Evidence Act."
(b) General rule.--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, 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 its preservation
is required by law. Any such reproduction in order to comply with this section must
accurately reproduce all lines and markings which appear on the original. 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 the tribunal. The introduction of a reproduced record, enlargement
or facsimile does not preclude admission of the original.
Cross References. Section 6109 is referred to in sections 1378, 1380, 1516, 1550, 3753 of Title 75 (Vehicles).
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Cummings, 487 A.2d 897 (Pa. 1985).
· cites it 8× “I would hold that, on the facts stated, the photocopy was sufficiently identified and was admissible pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the prosecution must fall because a photocopy of a document, rather than the original, was offered to…”
Am. States Ins. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 628 A.2d 880 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Shaffner, a vice-president of the Robinson-Connor Agency, the successor to the Winters-Boland Agency which issued the PREA and the AEC insurance *190 policies and the custodian of the microfilm records, in introducing these records.”
Commonwealth v. Jasper, 610 A.2d 949 (Pa. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Second, more accurately according to the court is its admissibility under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109, the Uniform Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as Evidence Act, which sanctions the admissibility of accurately reproduced copies of original records, citing for…”
Commonwealth v. Estman, 915 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 2× “[3] The statute in effect that Morabito asserted should have been used to determine if the photocopies of the documents should be admitted into evidence was 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109(b) which states that "any such reproduction .”
Bergen v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 785 A.2d 157 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 2× “In addition, the department may treat the received documents as documents of the department and use any of the methods of storage permitted under the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records) and may reproduce such documents…”
Gallant v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 805 A.2d 1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In addition, the department may treat the received documents as documents of the department and use any of the methods of storage permitted under the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records) and may reproduce such documents…”
Scott v. Com., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 291 (Pa. 2002).
“§ 6103 (relating to proof of official records), *636 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records) and 75 Pa.”
Tripson v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 773 A.2d 195 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
“The Department asserts that these certifications complied with the requirements of Sections 6109 and 6103 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6109 and 6103, and Section 1516(b) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Little, 512 A.2d 674 (Pa. 1986).
· cites it 2× “, [s]uch reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as *552 the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding, whether the original is in existence or not____ 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109(b). The Commonwealth produced the testimony of the…”
Koterba v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 736 A.2d 761 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
“In addition, the department may treat the received documents as documents of the department and use any of the methods of storage permitted under the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records), and may reproduce such…”
Hoover v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 725 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 2× “In addition, the department may treat the received documents as documents of the department and use any of the methods of storage permitted under the provisions of 42 Pa. C.S. § 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records), and may reproduce such…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6109(a)(11) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6109(b) — 13 cases
Commonwealth v. Cummings, 487 A.2d 897 (Pa. 1985).
“I would hold that, on the facts stated, the photocopy was sufficiently identified and was admissible pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the prosecution must fall because a photocopy of a document, rather than the original, was offered to…”
Commonwealth v. Estman, 915 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2007).
“[3] The statute in effect that Morabito asserted should have been used to determine if the photocopies of the documents should be admitted into evidence was 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109(b) which states that "any such reproduction .”
Commonwealth v. Little, 512 A.2d 674 (Pa. 1986).
“, [s]uch reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as *552 the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding, whether the original is in existence or not____ 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109(b). The Commonwealth produced the testimony of the…”
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.