Definitions That Apply to This Article

In this article: (a) A ‘‘writing’’ consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent set down in any form. (b) A ‘‘recording’’ consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent recorded in any manner. (c) A ‘‘photograph’’ means a photographic image or its equivalent stored in any form. (d) An ‘‘original’’ of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. For electronically stored information, ‘‘original’’ means any printout—or other output readable by sight—if it accurately reflects the information. An ‘‘original’’ of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it. (e) A ‘‘duplicate’’ means a copy produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original. Comment This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1001, except that the word ‘‘copy’’ in Pa.R.E 1001(e) replaces the word ‘‘counterpart’’ used in F.R.E. 1001(e). Paragraph 1001(e) defines the term duplicate. This term is important because of the admissibility of duplicates under Pa.R.E. 1003. This rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word ‘‘counterpart’’ has been replaced by the word ‘‘copy.’’ The word ‘‘counterpart’’ is used in paragraph 1001(d) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word ‘‘copy’’ is used in paragraph 1003(e) to mean a copy that was not intended to have the same effect as the original. Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher , 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo , 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). (a) A ‘‘writing’’ consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent set down in any form. (b) A ‘‘recording’’ consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent recorded in any manner. (c) A ‘‘photograph’’ means a photographic image or its equivalent stored in any form. (d) An ‘‘original’’ of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. For electronically stored information, ‘‘original’’ means any printout—or other output readable by sight—if it accurately reflects the information. An ‘‘original’’ of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it. (e) A ‘‘duplicate’’ means a copy produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original. Comment This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1001, except that the word ‘‘copy’’ in Pa.R.E 1001(e) replaces the word ‘‘counterpart’’ used in F.R.E. 1001(e). Paragraph 1001(e) defines the term duplicate. This term is important because of the admissibility of duplicates under Pa.R.E. 1003. This rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word ‘‘counterpart’’ has been replaced by the word ‘‘copy.’’ The word ‘‘counterpart’’ is used in paragraph 1001(d) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word ‘‘copy’’ is used in paragraph 1003(e) to mean a copy that was not intended to have the same effect as the original. Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher , 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo , 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). (b) A ‘‘recording’’ consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent recorded in any manner. (c) A ‘‘photograph’’ means a photographic image or its equivalent stored in any form. (d) An ‘‘original’’ of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. For electronically stored information, ‘‘original’’ means any printout—or other output readable by sight—if it accurately reflects the information. An ‘‘original’’ of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it. (e) A ‘‘duplicate’’ means a copy produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original. Comment This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1001, except that the word ‘‘copy’’ in Pa.R.E 1001(e) replaces the word ‘‘counterpart’’ used in F.R.E. 1001(e). Paragraph 1001(e) defines the term duplicate. This term is important because of the admissibility of duplicates under Pa.R.E. 1003. This rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word ‘‘counterpart’’ has been replaced by the word ‘‘copy.’’ The word ‘‘counterpart’’ is used in paragraph 1001(d) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word ‘‘copy’’ is used in paragraph 1003(e) to mean a copy that was not intended to have the same effect as the original. Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher , 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo , 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). (c) A ‘‘photograph’’ means a photographic image or its equivalent stored in any form. (d) An ‘‘original’’ of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. For electronically stored information, ‘‘original’’ means any printout—or other output readable by sight—if it accurately reflects the information. An ‘‘original’’ of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it. (e) A ‘‘duplicate’’ means a copy produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original. Comment This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1001, except that the word ‘‘copy’’ in Pa.R.E 1001(e) replaces the word ‘‘counterpart’’ used in F.R.E. 1001(e). Paragraph 1001(e) defines the term duplicate. This term is important because of the admissibility of duplicates under Pa.R.E. 1003. This rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word ‘‘counterpart’’ has been replaced by the word ‘‘copy.’’ The word ‘‘counterpart’’ is used in paragraph 1001(d) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word ‘‘copy’’ is used in paragraph 1003(e) to mean a copy that was not intended to have the same effect as the original. Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher , 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo , 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). (d) An ‘‘original’’ of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. For electronically stored information, ‘‘original’’ means any printout—or other output readable by sight—if it accurately reflects the information. An ‘‘original’’ of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it. (e) A ‘‘duplicate’’ means a copy produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original. Comment This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1001, except that the word ‘‘copy’’ in Pa.R.E 1001(e) replaces the word ‘‘counterpart’’ used in F.R.E. 1001(e). Paragraph 1001(e) defines the term duplicate. This term is important because of the admissibility of duplicates under Pa.R.E. 1003. This rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word ‘‘counterpart’’ has been replaced by the word ‘‘copy.’’ The word ‘‘counterpart’’ is used in paragraph 1001(d) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word ‘‘copy’’ is used in paragraph 1003(e) to mean a copy that was not intended to have the same effect as the original. Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher , 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo , 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). (e) A ‘‘duplicate’’ means a copy produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original. Comment This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1001, except that the word ‘‘copy’’ in Pa.R.E 1001(e) replaces the word ‘‘counterpart’’ used in F.R.E. 1001(e). Paragraph 1001(e) defines the term duplicate. This term is important because of the admissibility of duplicates under Pa.R.E. 1003. This rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word ‘‘counterpart’’ has been replaced by the word ‘‘copy.’’ The word ‘‘counterpart’’ is used in paragraph 1001(d) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word ‘‘copy’’ is used in paragraph 1003(e) to mean a copy that was not intended to have the same effect as the original. Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher , 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo , 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). Comment This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1001, except that the word ‘‘copy’’ in Pa.R.E 1001(e) replaces the word ‘‘counterpart’’ used in F.R.E. 1001(e). Paragraph 1001(e) defines the term duplicate. This term is important because of the admissibility of duplicates under Pa.R.E. 1003. This rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word ‘‘counterpart’’ has been replaced by the word ‘‘copy.’’ The word ‘‘counterpart’’ is used in paragraph 1001(d) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word ‘‘copy’’ is used in paragraph 1003(e) to mean a copy that was not intended to have the same effect as the original. Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher , 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo , 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). Paragraph 1001(e) defines the term duplicate. This term is important because of the admissibility of duplicates under Pa.R.E. 1003. This rule differs from the Federal Rule in that the word ‘‘counterpart’’ has been replaced by the word ‘‘copy.’’ The word ‘‘counterpart’’ is used in paragraph 1001(d) to refer to a copy intended to have the same effect as the writing or recording itself. The word ‘‘copy’’ is used in paragraph 1003(e) to mean a copy that was not intended to have the same effect as the original. Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher , 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo , 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). Pennsylvania law has permitted the use of duplicates produced by the same impression as the original, as is the case with carbon copies. See Brenner v. Lesher , 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 373 Pa. Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332 (1988); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo , 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964). Pennsylvania has not treated other duplicates as admissible unless the original was shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. For this reason, the definition of duplicates, other than those produced by the same impression as the original, is new to Pennsylvania law. The justification for adopting the new definition is discussed in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 1003. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808). Source The provisions of this Rule 1001 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (245807) to (245808).