Home › Pennsylvania › Rules of Evidence › Rule 1003

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Pa. R.E. 1003

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 1003 Admissibility of Duplicates

Article X: Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs

← Previous Rule 1002: Requirement of the Original Next → Rule 1004: Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content

Rule Text

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.

Amendment history: The provisions of this Rule 1003 amended March 29, 2001, effective April 1, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 1993; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (276591).

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

If you have a copy of a document, photo, or other item, you can usually use that copy in court just like the original. Courts treat good-quality copies the same as originals in most situations.

There are two exceptions. First, if someone seriously questions whether the original is real or was tampered with, the copy may not be enough. Second, if using a copy instead of the original would somehow be unfair to the other side, the judge can refuse to allow it.

Committee Notes

This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1003.

Under the traditional best evidence rule, copies of documents were not routinely admissible. This view dated back to the time when copies were made by hand copying and were therefore subject to inaccuracy. On the other hand, Pennsylvania courts have admitted copies made by techniques that are more likely to produce accurate copies. For example, when a writing is produced in duplicate or multiplicate each of the copies is treated as admissible for purposes of the best evidence rule. See Brenner v. Lesher, 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo, 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964).

In addition, various Pennsylvania statutes have treated some accurate copies as admissible. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6104 (governmental records in the Commonwealth); 42 Pa.C.S. § 5328 (domestic records outside the Commonwealth and foreign records); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6106 (documents recorded or filed in a public office); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (photographic copies of business and public records); 42 Pa.C.S. § § 6151—59 (certified copies of medical records).

The extension of similar treatment to all accurate copies seems justified in light of modern practice. Pleading and discovery rules such as Pa.R.C.P. No. 4009.1 (requiring production of originals of documents and photographs etc.) and Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(1)(f) and (g) (requiring disclosure of originals of documents, photographs and recordings of electronic surveillance) will usually provide an adequate opportunity to discover fraudulent copies. As a result, Pa.R.E. 1003 should tend to eliminate purely technical objections and unnecessary delay. In those cases where the opposing party raises a genuine question as to authenticity or the fairness of using a duplicate, the trial court may require the production of the original under this rule.

Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; Comment revised March 29, 2001, effective April 1, 2001; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013.

Final Report explaining the March 29, 2001 revision of the Comment published with the Court’s Order at 31 Pa.B. 1995 (April 14, 2001).

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

← Previous Rule 1002: Requirement of the Original Next → Rule 1004: Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content