Wash. Rev. Code » Title 5 · Chapter 5.44

Wash. Rev. Code § 5.44.040

Certified copies of public records as evidence

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Copies of all records and documents on record or on file in the offices of the various departments of the United States and of this state or any other state or territory of the United States or any federally recognized Indian tribe, when duly certified by the respective officers having by law the custody thereof, under their respective seals where such officers have official seals, must be admitted in evidence in the courts of this state.
[ 2019 c 39 s 2; 1991 c 59 s 1; 1891 c 19 s 16; Code 1881 s 432; 1854 p 195 s 336; RRS s 1257.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. ER 803; CR 44(a)(1).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: State v. Monson
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Monson (1989) wash · cites it 8× “040 provide for admissibility of a public record (here a certified copy of a defendant's driving record) as an exception to the hearsay rule; (2) If RCW 5.44.040 provides for *835 admissibility of a public record, does admission of the certified copy of the driving record…”
State v. Monson (1989) washctapp · cites it 12× “This petition presents four questions: (1) Can a certified copy of a driving record (CCDR) from the Department of Licensing properly be admitted into evidence under RCW 5.44.040?; (2) Was the petitioner's CCDR properly certified?; (3) Was the *856 petitioner's right of…”
State v. Davis (2000) wash · cites it 3× “” 311 An unauthenticated printout obtained from the Internet does not meet the public records exception to the hearsay rule under RCW 5.44.040. Nor does it qualify as a self-authenticating document under ER 902(e).”
State v. Iverson (2005) washctapp · cites it 3× “¶24 We also observe that jail booking records, when certified, are the kinds of records that are automatically admissible under RCW 5.44.040, the public records *340 statute.”
Brundridge v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc. (2008) wash · cites it 2× “Instead, it substituted a reference to RCW 5.44.040. As the accompanying comment explained, the court did so “not because of any fundamental disagreement with the rule, but because the drafters felt that the subject matter was adequately covered by the statute and decisions…”
Brundridge v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc. (2008) wash · cites it 2× “Instead, it substituted a reference to RCW 5.44.040. As the accompanying comment explained, the court did so "not because of any fundamental disagreement with the rule, but because the drafters felt that the subject matter was adequately covered by the statute and decisions…”
State v. Iverson (2005) washctapp · cites it 3× “¶ 24 We also observe that jail booking records, when certified, are the kinds of records that are automatically admissible under RCW 5.44.040, the public records statute.”
State v. Rivers (2005) washctapp · cites it 3× “48 ¶36 Here, the court admitted into evidence Exhibit 6, a packet of Department of Corrections documents certified by a records custodian of the Washington State Patrol (WSP) pursuant to RCW 5.44.040 and 43.43.725. They are not court certified.”
State v. Chapman (2000) washctapp · cites it 6× “RCW 5.44.040. At Jeffrey Chapman’s district court bench trial on a charge of second degree driving with a suspended license, the court admitted two documents into evidence: a signed certification prepared for trial, containing Mr.”
Jones v. Jones (2004) wash “2d 145 (1941); RCW 5.44.040. Although the appellate court states that it was error to exclude Russell’s repair cost bids because the statements are not hearsay under Rules of Evidence (ER) 801, it is mistaken and ignores the context in which the evidence was offered.”
In Re Estate of Jones (2004) wash “2d 145 (1941); RCW 5.44.040. [6] Although the appellate court states that it was error to exclude Russell's repair cost bids because the statements are not hearsay under Rules of Evidence (ER) 801, it is mistaken and ignores the context in which the evidence was offered.”
State v. Thompson (1983) washctapp · cites it 6× “He argues that RCW 5.44.040 [2] provides the exclusive method of authenticating public records.”
Show all 68 citing 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.