¶1dissenting.
¶2I disagree with Judge Holmes’s holding that the engineering report was not properly authenticated. Rule 901(a), Ala.R.Evid., effective January 1, 1996, which governs the proceedings in this case, provides:
“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.”
¶3Driskell, upon examination by her attorney, testified at her deposition as follows:
“Q. Let me ask you a couple of questions just to make sure that I’m clear about some things. This engineering report, did you ever see that it was actually done?
“A Did I see that it was done?
“Q. That is, did you see anything that looked like a copy of a report, did you ever read anything?
“A Yes, yes, twenty-five pages.
“Q. Was it from the company called Carr and Associates Engineering?
“A. That’s correct.
“Q. From Pelham, Aabama?
“A Correct.
“Q. If I — I’m going to mark — this is a faxed copy.
“A. That’s—
“Q. Do you recognize it?
“A Yes, I do.
“Q. Is that the same one that you—
“A. That’s it.”
¶4I conclude that this testimony from Driskell satisfies the requirements of Rule 901(a) authenticating the engineering report because her testimony is “evidence sufficient to support a finding, that the matter in question [whether the faxed copy of an engineering report regarding the structural integrity of the roof] is what its proponent claims [an accurate copy of the original engineering report regarding the structural integrity of the roof].”