State v. Blue

Mere speculation that a document is inaccurate is not sufficient to create a genuine question of authenticity.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction on two counts of unlawful use of a vehicle. Defendant rented a U-Haul in New Mexico, and drove to Oregon wherein she resided in the U-Haul for two weeks. The contract was for one day of in-town use and the U-Haul had been reported as stolen. Defendant was arrested and a photocopy of the contract was entered into evidence. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s ruling admitting the copy into evidence. Defendant argues on appeal that a genuine question exists as to the authenticity of the original contract and OEC 1003 required the original to be produced. The State responded that the defendant’s assertions of forgery or fraud did not require the original agreement be produced. The Court determined that mere speculation that a document is inaccurate is not sufficient to create a genuine question of authenticity. Looking to Sisters of St. Joseph v. Wyllie, 120 Or App 474 (1993), the Court reasoned that there is no support in federal or Oregon case law to support the position that a genuine question as to authenticity is raised under OEC 1003 when a defendant only denies that they signed the document. The Court found that the authenticity was a question of fact for the jury and held that the denial of Defendant’s motion to exclude was not in error. Affirmed.