(Federal Rule Identical.)
(Federal Rule Identical.)
Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Hearsay in Criminal Cases Under the Colorado Rules of Evidence: An Overview", see 50 U. Colo. L. Rev. 277 (1979). For article, "Authentication of Private Documents By Nonexpert Witnesses", see 22 Colo. 2241 (1993). For article, "Authentication", see 25 Colo. Law. 55 (September 1996). Taped telephone call by the defendant in which he identified himself to a detective was properly admitted under this rule and the court correctly determined that the recorded call was not included in prosecution's stipulation that it did not intend to introduce any statements by the defendant. People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100 (Colo. 1990). Mere fact that a document is authentic does not mean the document is admissible as competent evidence if the document constitutes otherwise inadmissible hearsay. People v. Morise, 859 P.2d 247 (Colo. App. 1993). Trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert's testimony respecting the results of her tests because the items tested by the expert were not introduced and because the expert did not describe how the items she tested were marked. Thus there was no proper evidence establishing that the tested items came from either defendant or the victim, save for the expert's unexplained conclusory statements. People v. Valencia, 257 P.3d 1203 (Colo. App. 2011). This rule merely establishes the requirements for admitting an item of physical evidence. However, even if the item itself is not admissible under this rule, the proponent may use other methods of proof to identify the item. People ex rel. J.G., 97 P.3d 300 (Colo. App. 2004). Testimony identifying items sufficient for admission. Testimony by the investigating officer identifying items seized at the scene of a crime is sufficient basis to support the admission of such items into evidence, even if the officer did not initial or mark the item when it was seized, if at trial the officer identifies the exhibit as appearing to be the same, or to look like, the evidence found at the scene. People v. Beltran, 634 P.2d 1003 (Colo. App. 1981). Physical evidence is authenticated if evidence supports a finding the item is what its proponent claims. This can be satisfied by testimony the evidence is what it is claimed to be. People v. Grace, 55 P.3d 165 (Colo. App. 2001). If a reasonable jury could decide that physical evidence is what its proponent claims it to be, trial court should allow the evidence to be presented to the jury. Any question as to the authenticity of the evidence is properly decided by the jury. People v. Crespi, 155 P.3d 570 (Colo. App. 2006). Satisfaction of authentication or identification as condition precedent to admissibility satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be conforms to the requirements of this rule. People v. Esch, 786 P.2d 462 (Colo. App. 1989); People v. Lesslie, 939 P.2d 443 (Colo. App. 1996). Authentication was satisfied when prosecution stated that it intended to use video animation to show the types of injuries generated by shaking a baby and that, because prosecution's expert would testify regarding the types of injuries discussed in the video, such video would assist the jury. People v. Cauley, 32 P.3d 602 (Colo. App. 2001). Record of defendant's conviction of forgery maintained by the Kansas bureau of investigation was admissible as a public record under section (b)(7). People v. Deskins, 904 P.2d 1358 (Colo. App. 1995), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 927 P.2d 368 (Colo. 1996). Sheriff's office booking reports containing certification and signature of custodian of records were admissible as public records under subsection (b)(7). People v. Warrick, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2011). Although subsection (b)(9) may be used to authenticate computer records, there is no requirement that computer records be authenticated only in this way. People v. Huehn, 53 P.3d 733 (Colo. App. 2002). Administrative law judge (ALJ) did not abuse his discretion by admitting documentary evidence under subsection (b)(1). Based upon witness testimony, ALJ committed no abuse of discretion in admitting record of request for purchase of political time and an agreement form for non-candidate issue advertisements as having been sufficiently authenticated under subsection (b)(1). As to admissibility of affidavit of performance used to indicate dates, airtimes, and the district in which the advertisements were broadcast, ALJ correctly held that political committee's agent would not have authorized payment of invoices if he doubted advertisements aired during relevant time period and in relevant legislative district. There was no need to further authenticate affidavit of performance because agent's conduct manifested "belief in its truth" under C.R.E. 801(d)(2)(B). Collectively, these documents support ALJ's findings that during relevant time period political committee arranged to broadcast television advertisements opposing legislative candidate to voters in candidate's district. Colo. Citizens for Ethics in Gov't v. Comm. for the Am. Dream, 187 P.3d 1207 (Colo. App. 2008). Applied in People v. Fueston, 717 P.2d 978 (Colo. App. 1985), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 749 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1988); People v. Gilmore, 97 P.3d 123 (Colo. App. 2003). .