Sec. 10-1. General Rule

To prove the content of a writing, recording or

photograph, the original writing, recording or pho-

tograph must be admitted in evidence, except as

otherwise provided by the Code, the General Stat-

utes or any Practice Book rule adopted before

June 18, 2014, the date on which the Supreme

Court adopted the Code. An original of electroni-

cally stored information includes evidence in the

form of a printout or other output, readable by sight

or otherwise shown to reflect the data accurately.

COMMENTARY

Section 10-1 adopts Connecticut’s best evidence rule. The

rule embraces two interrelated concepts. First, the proponent

must produce the original of a writing, as defined in Section

1-2 (c), recording or photograph when attempting to prove the

contents thereof, unless production is excused. E.g., Shelnitz

v. Greenberg, 200 Conn. 58, 78, 509 A.2d 1023 (1986). Sec-

ond, to prove the contents of the proffer, the original must be

admitted in evidence. Thus, for example, the contents of a

document cannot be proved by the testimony of a witness

referring to the document while testifying.

The cases generally have restricted the best evidence rule to

writings or documents. See Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores

Estates, Inc., 201 Conn. 1, 11, 513 A.2d 1218 (1986). In

extending the rule to recordings and photographs, Section 10-

1 recognizes the growing reliance on modern technologies for

the recording and storage of information.

Section 10-1 applies only when the proponent seeks to

prove contents. E.g., Hotchkiss v. Hotchkiss, 143 Conn. 443,

447, 123 A.2d 174 (1956) (proving terms of contract); cf. Dyer

v. Smith, 12 Conn. 384, 391 (1837) (proving fact about writing,

such as its existence or delivery, is not proving contents).

The fact that a written record or recording of a transaction

or event is made does not mean that the transaction or event

must be proved by production of the written record or

recording

kiss, 143 Conn. 443,

447, 123 A.2d 174 (1956) (proving terms of contract); cf. Dyer

v. Smith, 12 Conn. 384, 391 (1837) (proving fact about writing,

such as its existence or delivery, is not proving contents).

The fact that a written record or recording of a transaction

or event is made does not mean that the transaction or event

must be proved by production of the written record or

recording. When the transaction or event itself rather than the

contents of the written record or recording is sought to be

proved, the best evidence rule has no application. E.g., State

v. Moynahan, 164 Conn. 560, 583, 325 A.2d 199, cert. denied,

414 U.S. 976, 94 S. Ct. 291, 38 L. Ed. 2d 219 (1973); State

v. Tomanelli, 153 Conn. 365, 374, 216 A.2d 625 (1966).

What constitutes an ‘‘original’’ will be clear in most situations.

‘‘Duplicate originals,’’ such as a contract executed in duplicate,

that are intended by the contracting parties to have the same

effect as the original, qualify as originals under the rule. Cf.

Lorch v. Page, 97 Conn. 66, 69, 115 A. 681 (1921); Colburn’s

Appeal, 74 Conn. 463, 467, 51 A. 139 (1902).

The definition of ‘‘original’’ explicitly includes printouts or

other forms of electronically stored information that are readable. The proponent must show only that the printed or read-

able version is an accurate (i.e., unaltered and unmodified)

depiction of the electronically stored information. See Lorraine

v. Markel American Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 577–78 (D.

Md. 2007) (under Federal Rules of Evidence, ‘‘the ‘original’

of information stored in computer is readable display of the

information on the computer screen, the hard drive or other

source where it is stored, as well as any printout or output

that may be read, so long as it accurately reflects the data’’)

tored information. See Lorraine

v. Markel American Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 577–78 (D.

Md. 2007) (under Federal Rules of Evidence, ‘‘the ‘original’

of information stored in computer is readable display of the

information on the computer screen, the hard drive or other

source where it is stored, as well as any printout or output

that may be read, so long as it accurately reflects the data’’).

Although a printout or other physical manifestation of computer

data is considered the original for purposes of the best evi-

dence rule, the underlying data are significant for assessing

admissibility under exceptions to the hearsay rule. See Ninth

RMA Partners, L.P. v. Krass, 57 Conn. App. 1, 10–11, 746

A.2d 826 (business entry exception to hearsay rule), cert.

denied, 253 Conn. 918, 755 A.2d 215 (2000); Federal Deposit

Ins. Corp. v. Carabetta, 55 Conn. App. 384, 398–99, 739 A.2d

311 (same), cert. denied, 251 Conn. 928, 742 A.2d 362 (1999).

The second sentence in Section 10-1 is modeled on rule

1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and on parallel provi-

sions of rules from numerous states around the country.