Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 910.02 (2026)
Requirement of original
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
910.02910.02 Requirement of original. To prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in chs. 901 to 911, s. 137.21, or by other statute.
910.02 AnnotationThere is no “best evidence rule” applicable to photographs of objects that requires that the object itself be introduced rather than the photograph. A photograph of a wrench bearing the owner’s initials and found in defendant’s automobile was relevant. Anderson v. State, 66 Wis. 2d 233, 223 N.W.2d 879 (1974).
910.02 AnnotationScreen shots can be considered “originals” under the definition of “original” in s. 910.01 (3) that “if data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an ‘original’.” A cell phone is a “computer or similar device” and the screen shots are “output readable by sight.” According to testimony in this case, the screen shots reflected the data accurately. State v. Giacomantonio, 2016 WI App 62, 371 Wis. 2d 452, 885 N.W.2d 394, 15-0968.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Booker, 2006 WI 79 (Wis. 2006).
State v. Booker, 2006 WI 79 (Wis. 2006). “¶ 48 Under Wis. Stat. § 910.02 , "[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in chs.”
James E. Kochanski v. Speedway Superamerica, LLC, 2014 WI 72 (Wis. 2014). “" Wis. Stat. § 910.02 . 6 The spoliation doctrine allows a fact-finder to draw a negative inference against a party who destroys relevant documents.”
State v. Ford, 2007 WI 138 (Wis. 2007). “§ 910.02 5 provides that in order to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, 6 the original is required.”
State v. Giacomantonio, 2016 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “Giacomantonio next argues that the photographs of the text messages did not comply with Wisconsin's best evidence rule because in order to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the "original is required.”
Mitchell v. State, 267 N.W.2d 349 (Wis. 1978). “The best evidence rule, now codified in sec. 910.02, Stats., states that “To prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in chs.”
State v. Bauer, 368 N.W.2d 59 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “Our conclusion also is mandated by sec. 910.02, Stats., which provides that the original of a photograph *457 is required to prove its content.”
Dane Cnty. v. D. F. B. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 910.02. The writings that were not offered as evidence were three emails written and sent by D.”
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Timothy R. Rumpf (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§§ 910.02 and 910.03.3 Specifically, Rumpf argued that the Bank was required to submit original accounting records or a copy of those records, and that its evidence was insufficient because it consisted solely of an affidavit summarizing accounting records.”
State v. Joseph M. Zastrow (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “02 provides, “To prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in [WIS.”
Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4 v. Heather R. Seldal (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 910.02, which, with certain exceptions, requires an “original” to prove the content of a writing.”
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.