Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
(1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution. (Federal Rule Identical.)
(2) Domestic public documents not under seal. A document purporting to bear the signature in his official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in paragraph (1) hereof, having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine. (Federal Rule Identical.)
(3) Foreign public documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in his official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification. (Federal Rule Identical.)
(4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Federal or Colorado Rule of Procedure, or with any Act of the United States Congress, or any statute of the State of Colorado.(5) Official publications. Books, pamphlets, or other publications purporting to be issued by public authority. (Federal Rule Identical.)
(6) Newspapers and periodicals. Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals. (Federal Rule Identical.)
(7) Trade inscriptions and the like. Inscriptions, signs, tags, or labels purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating ownership, control, or origin. (Federal Rule Identical.)
(8) Acknowledged documents. Documents accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment executed in the manner provided by law by a notary public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments. (Federal Rule Identical.)
(9) Commercial paper and related documents. Commercial paper, signatures thereon, and documents relating thereto to the extent provided by general commercial law. (Federal Rule Identical.)
(10) Presumptions under legislative Act. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of the Congress of the United States, or by any statute of the State of Colorado to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.(11) Certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity. The original or a duplicate of a domestic record of regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by an affidavit of its custodian or other qualified person, in a manner complying with any Colorado statute or rule prescribed by the Colorado Supreme Court, certifying that the record- (a) was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;(b) was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and(c) was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice. A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this paragraph must provide written notice of that intention to all adverse parties, and must make the record and affidavit available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.
(12) Certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity. In a civil case, the original or a duplicate of a foreign record of regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by a written declaration by its custodian or other qualified person certifying that the record- (a) was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;(b) was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and(c) was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice. The declaration must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the maker to criminal penalty under the laws of the country where the declaration is signed. A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this paragraph must provide written notice of that intention to all adverse parties, and must make the record and declaration available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.
Source: (11) and (12) added and adopted June 20, 2002, effective 7/1/2002. Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Authentication", see 25 Colo. Law. 55 (September 1996). Out-of-state affidavit acknowledged by notary. An out-of-state affidavit of indigency, once sworn before and acknowledged by a notary, requires no further evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to its admissibility. Otani v. District Court, 662 P.2d 1088 (Colo. 1983). An administrative rule that does not satisfy the public notice requirements of § 24-4-103 , C.R.S. may not be introduced as evidence in criminal proceedings. People v. More, 668 P.2d 968 (Colo. App. 1983). Certified copies of public records provide sufficient authentication for purposes of proof under the habitual criminal statute. People v. Johnson, 699 P.2d 5 (Colo. App. 1984); People v. Shepherd, 43 P.3d 693 (Colo. App. 2001). This rule does not require that each and every signature contained within an otherwise properly authenticated set of public documents be certified or embossed with a seal. People v. Martinez, 51 P.3d 1029 (Colo. App. 2001), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 69 P.3d 1029 (Colo. 2003). Promissory note is self-authenticating when produced in a suit to collect deficiency and constitutes prima facie evidence of nonpayment unless the defendant establishes a defense. Smith v. Weindrop, 833 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1992). Certification in accordance with this rule makes the document self-authenticating and eliminates the need that a copy of the record be authenticated by testimony. People v. Vasquez, 155 P.3d 588 (Colo. App. 2006). Interrogatory response and report of subcontractor's employee on city's ventilation system in city's action against contractor and subcontractor was self-authenticating and required no further evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to its admissibility. Interrogatory response was a document accompanied by certificate of acknowledgment executed as provided by law by notary public or other officer authorized to take acknowledgments. City of Westminster v. MOA, Inc., 867 P.2d 137 (Colo. App. 1993). Record of defendant's conviction of forgery maintained by the Kansas bureau of investigation that bore the state seal was not self-authenticating because it did not contain a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution as required by subsection (1). 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). Applied in People v. Wiedemer, 641 P.2d 289 (Colo. App. 1981); People v. Jenkins, 717 P.2d 994 (Colo. App. 1985).