Rule 1001 Definitions That Apply to This Article

This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1001, except that the word ‘‘copy’’ in Pa.R.E 1001(e) replaces the word ‘‘counterpart’’ used in F.R.E. 1001(e).

Paragraph 1001(e) defines the term duplicate. This term is important because of the admissibility of duplicates under Pa.R.E. 1003. This rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word ‘‘counterpart’’ has been replaced by the word ‘‘copy.’’ The word ‘‘counterpart’’ is used in paragraph 1001(d) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word ‘‘copy’’ is used in paragraph 1003(e) to mean a copy that was not intended to have the same effect as the original.

Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher, 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo, 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003.

Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013.

Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013).