Opinion ID: 2364367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: a.r.e. 90s

Text: Barnes argues the blood test should not have been admitted because Hicks presented no evidence regarding the authentication requirements in North Carolina, where the test was performed, as required by Ark.R.Evid. 903 (1992). Rule 903 provides, The testimony of a subscribing witness is not necessary to authenticate a writing unless required by the laws of the jurisdiction whose laws govern the validity of the writing [emphasis supplied]. Barnes claims that, before an out-of-state writing is admitted, the proponent must offer proof regarding the authentication requirements in the originating state. He argues Rule 903 creates a condition precedent for admissibility of an out-of-state paternity test. The Rule provides a subscribing witness's testimony to authenticate a writing will be unnecessary unless required by the laws of the originating jurisdiction. The burden of showing that the laws of the originating state require testimony from a subscribing witness for proper authentication lies with the party challenging the document. Barnes has not shown that North Carolina law requires a subscribing witness's testimony. We also note that as the paternity test was required to be notarized under 9-10-108(c)(2)(A), it was a self-authenticating document. Ark.R.Evid. 902(8) (1992). Hicks was not required to produce any extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility. See Monark Boat Co. v. Fischer, 292 Ark. 544, 732 S.W.2d 123 (1987).