Evidence Code

ORS 40.505
Rule 901. Requirement of authentication or identification


The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.


By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section:


Testimony by a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be.


Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.


Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.


Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.


Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.


Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if:


In the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called; or


In the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.


Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.


Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form:


Is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity;


Was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be; and


Has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.


Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.


Any method of authentication or identification otherwise provided by law or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. [1981 c.892 §68]

(Rule 901)

See also annotations under ORS 42.060 and 42.070 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Authentication is receipt of conditionally relevant evidence, not preliminary determination of admissibility. State v. Park, 140 Or App 507, 916 P2d 334 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

19 WLR 428 (1983)

Chapter 40


Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in proceeding governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, materially exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitution. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff'd State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates minimum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identification evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Citations

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annotations are listed under the heading "Under former similar statute" if they predate the adoption of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021