State v. Sassarini

"Where a proponent has made that prima facie showing [that evidence is what the proponent claims it to be], the matter of authenticity is one for the ultimate factfinder at trial, not a preliminary ruling by the court." See OEC 104(2); Legislative Commentary on OEC 901, reprinted in Oregon Evidence § 901.02 at 946.

Defendant appealed a judgment conviction for harassment. Defendant assigned error to (1) the denial of a motion for continuance to allow an expert to examine evidence and metadata and (2) the admission of digital recordings over an objection that the State failed to demonstrate authenticity. On appeal, Defendant argued the denial of her motion for a continuance was improper because unanticipated circumstances required the continuance and that the documents were never authenticated under the test in State v. Miller, 6 Or App 366, 487 P2d 1387 (1971). In response, the State argued that OEC 901 superseded Miller and authentication now "merely requires the proponent to submit evidence 'sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.'" "Where a proponent has made that prima facie showing [that evidence is what the proponent claims it to be], the matter of authenticity is one for the ultimate factfinder at trial, not a preliminary ruling by the court." See OEC 104(2); Legislative Commentary on OEC 901, reprinted in Oregon Evidence § 901.02 at 946. The Court held that the trial court properly found the State met the threshold to send the question of authenticity to the jury and did not act outside its discretion when ruling on the motion for a continuance. 

Affirmed.