Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
S.C. R. Evid. 902
With the exception of subsections (4) and (10) which are discussed below, this rule is identical to the federal rule.
Subsection (1): South Carolina law has previously permitted self-authentication of certain classes of domestic public documents under seal. See e.g., S.C. Code Ann. § 19-5-220 (1985) (proof of various documents under seal of any city or state).
Subsection (2): There does not appear to be any South Carolina law permitting self-authentication in these circumstances.
Subsection (3) is similar to Rule 44(a)(2), SCRCP.
Subsection (4) is identical to the federal rule except that it is amended so as to also allow compliance with "any statute or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court." Examples of such statutes and rules include: S.C. Code Ann. § 19-5-10 (1985) (admissibility of certified copies or certified photostatic copies of documents); S.C. Code Ann. § 19-5-30 (Supp. 1993) (admissibility of photostatic or certified copies of certain motor vehicle records); Rule 44(a)(1), SCRCP (authentication of domestic records); Rule 6, SCRCrimP (self-authentication of chemist's or analyst's report of nature of "controlled dangerous substances").
Subsection (5): There does not appear to be any South Carolina authority for this proposition.
Subsection (6) appears to be consistent with South Carolina law. See Kirkpatrick v. Hardeman, 123 S.C. 21, 115 S.E. 905 (1923) (although unclear if Court treated as hearsay or authentication problem, newspaper reports of stock quotations were admitted for purpose of proving market value of stock).
Subsection (7): There does not appear to be any South Carolina authority for this proposition.
Subsection (8): This is similar to South Carolina Code Ann. §§ 19-5-220 and 19-5-230 (1985) which allow the self-authentication of certain documents of city, state or foreign governments under seal of a notary public.
Subsection (9): Under the Uniform Commercial Code, certain items are self-authenticating. See S.C. Code Ann. § 36-1-202 (1976) (includes bills of lading, insurance policies or any document authorized by the contract to be issued by third party); § 36-3-307 (1976) (signatures, unless specifically denied in the pleadings); §36-3-510 (1976) (formal certificate of protest, a stamp by drawee that payment was refused, or bank records showing dishonor are all admissible in evidence and create a presumption of dishonor); § 36-8-105(3) (Supp. 1993) (signatures on a certificated security, in a necessary indorsement, on an initial transaction statement or on an instruction is admitted unless put into issue).
Subsection (10): This subsection differs from the federal rule only in that "declared by statute" is substituted for "declared by Act of Congress." An example of a statute under this subsection is S.C. Code Ann. §39-15-140 (1985) (certificate of trademark registration issued by the Secretary of State).
.