Subscribing witness’s testimony unnecessary

The testimony of a subscribing witness is not necessary to authenticate a writing unless required by the laws of the jurisdiction whose laws govern the validity of the writing. Advisory Committee’s Notes Historic Alabama practice has embraced a rule of preference that generally calls for the production of attesting witnesses, or an accounting for their unavailability, whenever one is proving the execution of an attested document. See Snead v. Stephens, 242 Ala. 76, 5 So.2d 740 (1941). See also C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 233.01(1) (4th ed. 1991); J. Colquitt, Alabama Law of Evidence § 9.3 (1990). Over the years, numerous exceptions have been created to this rule of preference, and under them the offering party is free to go directly to alternative proof of authenticity without producing the attesting witness or accounting for that witness’s unavailability. See, e.g., Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-61 (declaring the attesting witness rule inapplicable to ancient writings, official bonds, writings that are only collaterally involved, writings as to which the maker testifies to proper execution, and writings that are self-proving); Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-60 (permitting the execution of a writing to be proved without producing attesting witnesses if testimony of the maker is offered); Ala.R.Civ.P. 44(1) (containing many of the exceptions to the attesting witness rule embodied in the statutes just listed). Compare Ala.R.Evid. 901(b)(8) (recognizing the self-authentication of ancient documents); Ala.R.Evid. 902 (dealing with the self-authentication of certain public records or documents).