Conn. R. Evid. 9-2
The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admitting a document in any form into evidence shall be satisfied upon proof that the document (A) has been in existence for more than thirty years, (B) was produced from proper custody, and (C) is otherwise free from suspicion.
Conn. Code. Evid. 9-2
COMMENTARY
Section 9-2 embraces the common-law ancient document rule. See, e.g., Jarboe v. Home Bank & Trust Co., 91 Conn. 265, 269, 99 A. 563 (1917). Documents that satisfy the foundational requirements are authenticated without more. See id., 270. Thus, Section 9-2 dispenses with any requirement that the document's proponent produce attesting witnesses. Borden v. Westport, 112 Conn. 152, 161, 151 A. 512 (1930); Jarboe v. Home Bank & Trust Co., supra, 269, 270.
Although common-law application of the rule mainly involved dispositive instruments, such as wills and deeds; e.g., Jarboe v. Home Bank & Trust Co., supra, 91 Conn. 269 (will); Borden v. Westport, supra, 112 Conn. 161 (deed); but see, e.g., Petro-man v. Anderson, 105 Conn. 366, 369-70, 135 A. 391 (1926) (ancient map); the current rule applies to all documents, in any form, including those stored electronically.
Ancient documents are the subject of a hearsay exception with foundational requirements identical to those found in Section 9-2. See Section 8-3(9).