§ Rule 1001. Definitions

Codes > Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes > Rules of > Article X > Rule 1001.

Rule 1001. Definitions

For purposes of this article the following definitions are applicable:

(1) Writings and recordings. “Writings” and “recordings” consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.

(2) Photographs. “Photographs” include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures.

(3) Original. An “original” of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original”.

(4) Duplicate. A “duplicate” is a copy produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.

Comment: This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1001, except that the word “copy” in Pa.R.E. 1001(4) replaces the word “counterpart” used in F.R.E. 1001(4).

Paragraphs 1001(1) and (2) have no precise equivalent in Pennsylvania law, but the definitions of the terms writings, recordings and photographs are consistent with lay and legal usage in Pennsylvania.

The definition of an original writing, recording or photograph contained in paragraph 1001(3) appears to be consistent with Pennsylvania practice.

The definition of an original of data stored in a computer or similar device in paragraph 1001(3) is consistent with Pa.R.E. 901(b)(9) (authentication of evidence produced by a process or system).

Paragraph 1001(4) 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 This Rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word “counterpart” has been replaced by the word “copy”.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(3) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word “copy” is used 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. See Hera v. McCormick, 425 Pa. Super. 432, 625 A.2d 682 (1993); Warren v. Mosites Constr. Co., 253 Pa. Super. 395, 385 A.2d 397 (1978). 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.