See also: DEEDS
MAPS; PHOTOGRAPHS; SURVEYS

§ 1.  Authentication and Trustworthiness

Under the federal rules, a document or data compilation twenty years old is considered sufficiently authenticated so long as there is nothing unusual or suspicious about its condition or where it was found.{footnote}FRE 901(b)(8); U.S. v. Stelmokas, 100 F.3d 302, 312 (3d Cir. 1996) (German and Lithuanian records from World War II admissible); Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp., 765 F.2d 456, 464 (5th Cir. 1985) (internal corporate memoranda inadmissible where plaintiff failed to introduce evidence to establish that the papers were found in the expected place: the corporation’s records); United States v. Koziy, 728 F.2d 1314, 1321-22 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 835 (1984).{/footnote}  Many states have similar rules, although the required age of the offered document varies somewhat.{footnote}Cal. Evid. Code § 643; La. Code Evid. art. 901(B)(8) (30 years); In re Estate of Walton, 785 P.2d 1239 (Ariz. App. 1989); Allgood v. Bradford, 473 So. 2d 402, 416 (Miss. 1985) (30 years); Guthrie v. Suitter, 934 S.W.2d 820, 825 (Tex. App. 1996) (document inadmissible where not 20 years old and no testimony as to where it came from; applying Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(8));
Am. Jur. Evid. §§ 1201-1211
See also Markiewicz v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association, 576 P.2d 517 (Ariz. App. 1978) (document properly excluded where not dated and author unknown; applying rule as it existed before adoption of FRE 901(b)(8); People ex rel. Adams Elec. Coop. v. Village Of Camp Point, 675 N.E.2d 1371 (Ill. App. 1997) (documents relating to real estate; maps held inadmissible); Rowan Cty. Bd. of Ed. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 407 S.E.2d 860, 868 (N.C. App. 1991) (applying N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, R. 803(16) (1988)); McCormick’s Handbook on the Law of Evidence, § 223 (2d ed. 1972).
CHECK N.Y. CPLR 4522; Matter of Kings Estates Ltd. Partnership v Town of Chester, 162 AD2d 802.{/footnote}

The issue at this stage is whether the document is what it appears to be, not whether its content is reliable.{footnote}Threadgill v. Armstrong, 928 F.2d 1366, 1375 (3d Cir. 1991) (reversing exclusion of business documents in asbestos case); United States v. Kairys, 782 F.2d 1374, 1379 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1153 (1986).{/footnote}  Questions as to the documents’ content and completeness go to the weight to be given the evidence, not its authenticity.{footnote}Threadgill v. Armstrong, 928 F.2d 1366, 1375 (3d Cir. 1991) (reversing exclusion of business documents in asbestos case); United States v. Kairys, 782 F.2d 1374, 1379 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1153 (1986){/footnote}  Whether there is anything unusual or suspicious about a document’s condition or where it was found is a matter for the trial court’s discretion.{footnote}United States v. Kairys, 782 F.2d 1374, 1379 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1153 (1986) (German World War II documents found in Soviet Union archives properly admitted).{/footnote}  Documents found properly authenticated pursuant to this rule include correspondence,{footnote}  Horne v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 4 F.3d 276, 283-84 (4th Cir. 1993).
Rowan Cty. Bd. of Ed. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 407 S.E.2d 860, 868 (N.C. App. 1991) (applying N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, R. 901(b)(8) (1988)); Lockwood v. A C & S, Inc., 744 P.2d 605, 614-15 (Wash. 1987) (applying Wash. Evid. R. 901(b)(8)).{/footnote} interoffice memoranda,{footnote}{/footnote} reports,{footnote}Cole v. Celotex Corp., 588 So. 2d 376, 382 (La. App. 1991).{/footnote} brochures,{footnote}Horne v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 4 F.3d 276, 283-84 (4th Cir. 1993).{/footnote}

Undated documents have been held properly admitted under this rule where there is circumstantial evidence of the document’s age.{footnote}Kath v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 441 N.W.2d 569, 575 (Minn. App. 1989); Matusziewski v. Pancoast, 526 N.E.2d 80 (Ohio App. 1985) (dicta; applying Ohio Evid. R. 901(B)(8)).
5 J. Weinstein, Weinstein’s Evidence para. 901(b)(8)[01] (1988) (court may look to "the physical appearance of the proffered evidence," or the "contents of the material itself together with the surrounding circumstances").
See also
But see Markiewicz v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association, 576 P.2d 517 (Ariz. App. 1978) (document properly excluded where not dated and author unknown; applying rule as it existed before adoption of FRE 901(b)(8)).{/footnote}

In state courts, ancient documents relating to real property, such as wills, deeds or mortgages, carry a presumption of authenticity if they are established as being at least thirty years old, appear to be authentic on their face, and were kept or found in a place where an authentic document of that nature would likely be found.{footnote}Cal. § 643; Reuter v. Stuckart, 181 Ill. App. 529, 54 N.E. 1014 (1899).{/footnote}    Some states also require proof of "proper custody" and that the document had been accepted as true by persons having an interest in the property.{footnote}Cal. § 1331.{/footnote}

§ 2.  Hearsay

The federal rules except from the hearsay rule statements in any document which has been in existence at least twenty years and has been authenticated (see § 1).{footnote}FRE 803(16); George v. Celotex Corp., 914 F.2d 26, 30 (2d Cir. 1990); (report admissible despite argument that defendant denied opportunity to test report’s conclusions); U.S. v. Stelmokas, 100 F.3d 302, 312 (3d Cir. 1996) (German and Lithuanian records from World War II admissible). {/footnote}  Thus, once a document qualifies as an ancient document under FRE 901(b)(8), it is automatically excepted from the  hearsay rule under FRE 803(16).{footnote}Threadgill v. Armstrong, 928 F.2d 1366, 1375 (3d Cir. 1991).{/footnote} Many states have similar hearsay exceptions, although the required age of the offered document varies.{footnote}E.g., Clark v. Drska, 473 A.2d 325, 330 (Conn. App. 1984) (insuffient foundation where custody of map not shown); Allgood v. Bradford, 473 So. 2d 402, 416 (Miss. 1985) (30 years).
But see ______, 57 Tenn. L. Rev. 117, 118 (noting that Tennessee rules of evidence provide no hearsay exception for ancient documents).{/footnote}  Some states require that the author of the document be shown to have had personal knowledge of the matters asserted.{footnote}Kirkpatrick v. Tapo Oil Co., 144 Cal.App.2d 404, 301 P.2d 274 (1956); Rowan Cty. Bd. of Ed. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 407 S.E.2d 860, 868 (N.C. App. 1991) (applying N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, R. 803(16) (1988)); Sherrill v. Estate of Plumley, 514 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.Civ.App.1974) (predating Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 901(b)(8)); McCormick’s Handbook on the Law of Evidence, § 323 (2d ed. 1972).{/footnote}

Documents found admissible pursuant to this rule include interoffice memoranda,{footnote}Horne v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 4 F.3d 276, 283-84 (4th Cir. 1993).{/footnote} reports, brochures,{footnote}Horne v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 4 F.3d 276, 283-84 (4th Cir. 1993).{/footnote} photographs,{footnote}In re Egbert Estate, 306 N.W.2d 525, 527 (Mich. App. 1981){/footnote} and medical studies.{footnote}Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Am. Centennial Ins. Co., 660 N.E.2d 807 (Ohio Misc. 1995) (applying Ohio Evid.R. 803(16)).{/footnote}
 
Some courts limit this exception to documents relating to property that have been in existence for many years (generally twenty or thirty).  The thirty years is measured to the date of trial, not when suit was filed.{footnote}Reuter v. Stuckart, 181 Ill. 529, 54 N.E. 1014 (1899).{/footnote}  Documents held to be within this exception include wills, deeds, mortgages and abstracts of title.  See DEEDS; MAPS; MORTGAGES; RECORDED INSTRUMENTS; Surveys; TITLE ABSTRACTS; WILLS.  Note that the legally operative language in such instruments (e.g., "I grant to ….") is not hearsay.  See HEARSAY–Statements Having Legal Effect.

3.  Other Grounds for Exclusion

While the lack of trustworthiness of a document’s contents is not a factor to be considered in determining whether it is authentinc or satisfies the hearsay exception, it may render a document inadmissible under FRE 403 or its state counterparts.{footnote}Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 552 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. App. 1996) (complaints offered under ancient documents excpetion properly excluded under Minn. R. Evid. 403 due to lack of trustworthiness of affidavits attached, which were signed by the plaintiff’s attorney).
{/footnote}

3.  Weight to be Given

It has been stated that a trier of fact is not required to accord special weight to documents by reason of their antiquity.{footnote}Cornwall v. Forger, 538 N.E.2d 45, 48 n. 5 (Mass. App. 1989)
CHECK See Lowell v. Boston, 322 Mass. 709, 718, appeal dismissed sub nom.  Pierce v. Boston, 335 U.S. 849 (1948); United States v. Koziy, 728 F.2d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 835 (1984); United States v. Kairys, 782 F.2d 1374, 1379 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1153 (1986); Estate of Nidever, 181 Cal. App. 2d 367, 378 (1960).{/footnote}