See also: BANK RECORDS; CASH
CHECKBOOKS; FINANCIAL CONDITION
GUEST CHECKS; MONEY
MONEY ORDERS.

1.  Best Evidence

A photocopy or microfilm copy of a check is admissible in lieu of an original unless the objector elicits testimony or makes a proffer suggesting that the original has been tampered with or altered in any way or that the copy was not what it purported  to be.{footnote}U.S. v. Mulinelli-Navas, 111 F.3d 983 (1st Cir. 1997).
See generally FRE 1003.  See also BEST EVIDENCE; PHOTOCOPIES.{/footnote}

1.  Authentication

Checks are self-authenticating under FRE 902(9) as commercial paper.{footnote}United States v. Little, 567 F.2d 346, 349 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978); United States v. Hawkins, 905 F.2d 1489, 1494 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 707, 112 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1991); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 616 F. Supp. 1159, 1162 (E.D.N.Y. 1985); In re Richter & Phillips Jewelers & Distribs., 31 Bankr. 512, 515 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983).
See also U.S. v. Porter, 711 F.2d 1397, 1403 n. 5 (7th Cir. 1983) (dictum).{/footnote}  See also COMMERCIAL PAPER; AUTHENTICATION–Self-Authenticating Documents.  Even a photocopy of a photocopy of a check may be admitted into evidence, if the original and the first copy have been lost.{footnote}United States v. Gerhart, 538 F.2d 807 (8th Cir. 1976). {/footnote}  See also BEST EVIDENCE.

An endorsement signature, as part of the check, is self-authenticating under FRE 902(9) and its state counterparts.{footnote}See State v. Knotts, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 2935 (store’s endorsement stamp constituted signature and therefore self-authenticating).{/footnote}  Where checks are not by statute or rule rendered self-authenticating, it has been held that circumstantial evidence may authenticate an endorsement signature.{footnote}Cardin v. State, 540 N.E.2d 51, 54 (Ind. App. 1989).{/footnote} 

2.  As Hearsay

The operative language on the front of a check, directing the payment of money, is not hearsay: it can be neither true nor false, therefore it cannot be offered for its “truth”.{footnote}Cardin v. State, 540 N.E.2d 51, 54 (Ind. App. 1989).
See also Rizzen v. Spaman, 665 N.E.2d 283 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (checks in payment of legal fees not hearsay because merely documentary evidence supporting testimony).

{/footnote}   The same is true of check endorsements.{footnote}Cardin v. State, 540 N.E.2d 51, 54 (Ind. App. 1989).{/footnote}  Courts have nevertheless held checks admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule,{footnote}United States v. Palmiotti, 254 F.2d 491, 497 (2d Cir. 1958) (checks  that were records of company’s payments to extortionist and kept in ordinary course of business were properly received to corroborate testimony that payments were made to extortionist); United States v. Palmer, 766 F.2d 1441, 1446 (10th Cir. 1985); United States v. Sheppard, 688 F.2d 952, 953 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam).{/footnote} or public records exception where the payer is a public office or agency.{footnote}See, e.g., United States v. Hans, 684 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1982).{/footnote}
 
Notations on checks for informational purposes have been held inadmissible hearsay where there was no showing of when they were made or that they were part of a regular business practice.{footnote}Hanna Lumber Co. v. Neff, 579 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Ark. 1979).{/footnote} A bank’s stamp markings on a check, which indicate that the checks were processed by the bank and the manner in which they were processed, have been held to be hearsay.{footnote}Cardin v. State, 540 N.E.2d 51, 54 (Ind. App. 1989) (no proper foundation laid under business records exception where witness {/footnote}  Similarly, entries on check stubs and entries in check registers have been held admissible hearsay where a proper foundation was laid under the business records exception{footnote} Sabatino v. Curtiss National Bank, 415 F.2d 632, 634 (5th Cir. 1969) (applying now-repealed Federal Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1732 (1970)).{/footnote} but inadmissible where no proper foundation was laid under that exception.{footnote}Franklin Investment Co. v. Smith, 383 A.2d 355, 357 (D.C. App. 1978) (ordering new trial); Nall v. Brennan, 324 Mo. 565, 23 S.W.2d 1053, 1057 (1930); Nappi v. Gherdts, 103 A.D.2d 737, 477 N.Y.S.2d 202 (1984); Shea v. McKeon, 264 App.Div. 573, 35 N.Y.S.2d 962 (1942).{/footnote}