892 So. 2d 248 - Burchfield v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Even with an applicable exception to hearsay, the label must be properly authenticated. The central rule is that authentication "as condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." M.R.E. 901(a). The Rule then provides specific examples of means of authentication, but these are for "illustration only, and not by way of limitation...." M.R.E. 901(b). Among the items subject to self-authentication are "labels purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating ownership, control or origin." M.R.E. 902(7). We accept that this rule specifically only permits self-authentication of a label in order to demonstrate the source of a product. This limit is reinforced by the comment to the rule, which cites a precedent in which that was the issue. M.R.E. 902(7) cmt., citing Curtiss Candy Co. v. Johnson, 163 Miss. 426 , 141 So. 762 (1932). As with the use of Rule 803(24) as the hearsay exception, we conclude that a common sense reading of the authentication requirements is that labels on products of established manufacturers who are engaging in nationwide distribution and are subject to federal regulation, are self-authenticating. The chain of custody of the bottles is not questioned. There is no reason to suspect that the label is not what it purports to be, and no reason to believe that it was affixed by someone other than the stated manufacturer. The labels were ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 892 So. 2d 191 - Burchfield v. State

2. “as condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 892 So. 2d 191 - Burchfield v. State

3. “labels purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating ownership, control or origin.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 892 So. 2d 191 - Burchfield v. State