Court Opinion

ID: 9745108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:35:34.15766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:56.241153
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as to their holding that a photocopy of a certificate of authentication is not sufficient. The majority sees a difference between photocopies of the official records and a photocopy of the certification of authenticity. Both this Court and the Court of Appeals have held that a duplicate of a document is admissible in evidence to the same extent as an original unless there is a genuine issue as to the authenticity of the original. Brandon v. State (1979), 272 Ind. 92, 396 N.E.2d 365; Wilson v. State (1976), 169 Ind.App. 297, 348 N.E.2d 90.
Although appellant vigorously objected to the admission of the exhibits because of the photocopy of the authenticating certificate, he did not question the authenticity of the original certificate nor did he question the authenticity of the court records which were authenticated by the photocopied certificate.
I see no justification for the making of a separate rule for a certificate of authentication than is applicable to the court records. The photocopies available in this record clearly show that they are copies of certificates duly executed by the proper Ohio authorities. There is nothing in the record or in the briefs of appellant in this case that suggest that an obtaining of original certificates from the Ohio authorities will in any way change this case.
I see no justification for the use of judicial time and taxpayer's funds for a new trial when there is no indication of a likelihood of a different result. I would affirm the trial court.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.