A. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be.
§ 2901.Requirement of Authentication Or Identification
Chapter 40: Oklahoma Evidence Code · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified August 3, 2026
In one sentenceRequires evidence sufficient to support a finding that a matter is what its proponent claims before it can be admitted, and lists ten illustrative methods -- including witness testimony, handwriting comparison, distinctive characteristics, voice identification, and telephone-call circumstances -- that satisfy that standard.
Full Text of § 2901
B. The following are illustrative examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this Code:
1. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be;
2. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation;
3. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated;
4. Appearance, content, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics taken in conjunction with circumstances;
5. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker;
6. Telephone conversations by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business if:
a. in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or
b. in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone;
7. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept;
8. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form:
a. is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity,
b. was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and
c. has been in existence twenty (20) years or more at the time it is offered;
9. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result; or
10. Any method of authentication or identification provided by statute or by rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.
Amendment History
Laws 1978, SB 276, c. 285, § 901, eff. 10/1/1978.
Plain-English Summary
Before evidence comes in, its proponent has to authenticate or identify it -- show enough for a finding that it is what it's claimed to be. Subsection A sets that standard; subsection B illustrates it without limiting it, since the ten paragraphs are, by the statute's own terms, examples "conforming with the requirements of this Code," not an exclusive list.
The examples run from testimony that a matter is what it's claimed to be, to nonexpert opinion on handwriting based on familiarity gained outside the litigation, to comparison by the trier of fact or an expert with authenticated specimens. Others cover distinctive appearance or content taken with the circumstances, voice identification from any hearing of the voice, telephone calls authenticated by evidence of who was called and how the conversation unfolded, and public records or old documents authenticated by their custody and condition. A final catch-all, paragraph 10, opens the door to any other method a statute or Supreme Court rule provides.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much proof does it take to authenticate a document or object?
Evidence sufficient to support a finding that it is what its proponent claims it to be -- not conclusive proof, just enough for that finding.
Is the list of authentication methods in subsection B the only way to authenticate evidence?
No, the statute calls them "illustrative examples," and paragraph 10 separately allows any method provided by statute or by rules the Supreme Court prescribes.
Can a lay witness authenticate someone's handwriting?
Yes, nonexpert opinion on the genuineness of handwriting is listed, as long as the witness's familiarity with it wasn't acquired for the litigation.
How can a phone call be authenticated as being with a particular person or business?
By evidence the call was made to the number assigned to that person or business, combined with circumstances -- like self-identification for a person, or a business-related conversation for a business call.
Does old age alone authenticate a document?
Paragraph 8 lists a document in a condition free of suspicion, found where it would likely be if authentic, and in existence twenty years or more when offered, as one illustrative example.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes, enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature.
Last verified August 3, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: authentication of evidence oklahoma12 O.S. § 2901FRE 901 oklahoma equivalenthow to authenticate a document oklahoma court