Which statement best describes the admissibility standard for secondary evidence when the original item is not available due to loss or destruction?

• A. It may be admitted only if the original was destroyed in the ordinary course.
• B. It may be admitted whenever the party desires, with no safeguards.
• C. It may be admitted when the original is unavailable and proper justification with safeguards is provided.
• D. It may be admitted only if the court finds the secondary evidence more persuasive.

Answer: (C)

When the original document cannot be produced because it’s lost or destroyed, you don’t automatically get to use a substitute. The admissibility of secondary evidence hinges on showing that the original is truly unavailable and that there is proper justification with safeguards in place to assure reliability. This prevents distortions and protects against fraud.

That’s why the correct statement is that secondary evidence may be admitted when the original is unavailable and proper justification with safeguards is provided. The other options don’t fit because they either ignore the required unavailability and safeguards, demand an outcome (more persuasive) as a condition for admissibility, or impose a narrow, unnecessary criterion (destruction only in the ordinary course).