The original or a duplicate is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if:
HRS § 1004
RULE 1004 COMMENTARY
This rule is similar to Fed. R. Evid. 1004, except that the words "or a duplicate" are added to the first sentence of this rule. The change is not substantive. The rule specifies the exceptions to Rule 1002, and effects no change in existing law, see Chu Chung v. Jellings, 30 H. 784 (1929) (destroyed); Rex v. Lenehan,3 Haw. 714 (1876) (possession of opponent).
As the Advisory Committee's Note to Fed. R. Evid. 1004 points out, the "rule recognizes no 'degrees' of secondary evidence." Thus, when this rule is satisfied, there is no preference for one form of secondary evidence over another.
Although rule 1002 would ordinarily have precluded the admission of testimony about cell phone text messages because such testimony was not an "original", the testimony was admissible because paragraph (1) applied to the text messages such that other evidence could be admitted to prove the content of the text messages; as complainant no longer had the actual text messages because complainant no longer had the cell phone or cell phone service, for purposes of paragraph (1), the original text messages were "lost or destroyed". 117 H. 127,176 P.3d 885.