This post examines a recent opinion from the Colorado Court of Appeals: People v. Heisler, 2017
WL 1756277 (2017). The court begins the opinion by explaining “Steven Thomas
Heisler, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding
him guilty of one count of harassment.” People
v. Heisler, supra.
The opinion goes on to outline what led to the prosecution
and what it encompassed:
The victim and Heisler began dating in
2010 and carried on their relationship for three years. After they broke up in
2013, they remained in touch. In March 2014, however, the victim told Heisler
that she was beginning a new relationship and no longer wished to communicate
with him.
Heisler ignored the victim's request
and sent her numerous text messages and letters, although the victim remained
relatively unresponsive to these communications. Eventually, in December 2014,
Heisler traveled from Florida, where he lived, to Colorado to talk to the
victim in person—uninvited and unannounced. When the victim saw Heisler outside
of her home, she called the police. Heisler was arrested and charged with one
count of felony stalking and one count of harassment. The charging instrument
alleged that both charges were acts of `domestic violence.’ After a jury trial,
Heisler was acquitted of the stalking charge but was found guilty of
harassment.
At Heisler's sentencing hearing, the
trial court sentenced him to thirty days in county jail and three years of
supervised probation, which Heisler could serve in Florida. Pursuant to
applicable statutes, the trial court also found that his conduct underlying his
conviction included an act of domestic violence. Therefore, the court ordered
Heisler to complete mandatory domestic violence treatment as a condition of his
probation.
People v. Heisler,
supra.
The court goes on to explain that
Heisler ignored the victim's request
and sent her numerous text messages and letters, although the victim remained
relatively unresponsive to these communications. Eventually, in December 2014,
Heisler traveled from Florida, where he lived, to Colorado to talk to the
victim in person—uninvited and unannounced. When the victim saw Heisler outside
of her home, she called the police. Heisler was arrested and charged with one
count of felony stalking and one count of harassment. The charging instrument
alleged that both charges were acts of `domestic violence.’ After a jury trial,
Heisler was acquitted of the stalking charge but was found guilty of
harassment.
At Heisler's sentencing hearing, the
trial court sentenced him to thirty days in county jail and three years of
supervised probation, which Heisler could serve in Florida. Pursuant to
applicable statutes, the trial court also found that his conduct underlying his
conviction included an act of domestic violence. Therefore, the court ordered
Heisler to complete mandatory domestic violence treatment as a condition of his
probation.
Heisler now
appeals.
People v. Heisler,
supra.
The Court of Appeals went on to explain that in challenging
his conviction, Heisler “contends that the trial court erred by admitting into
evidence the text messages he sent to the victim because they were not properly
authenticated under [Colorado Rules of Evidence] 901(a).” People v. Heisler, supra.
The court began its analysis of Heisler’s argument by
explaining that
[b]efore evidence may be
admitted, CRE 901(a) requires that the evidence be sufficiently
authenticated by the proponent. Authentication `is satisfied by evidence sufficient
to support a finding that the [evidence] in question is what its proponent
claims [it to be].’ CRE 901(a); see also People v. Glover,
2015 COA 16, ¶ 12, 363 P.3d 736. `The burden to authenticate ‘is not high—only
a prima facie showing is required. . . .’ Glover, ¶ 13 (quoting United
States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 133 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit 2014)).
The showing required to authenticate
text messages under CRE 901(a) is a matter of first impression in Colorado. In setting this standard, we find the
reasoning of the divisions in People v. Bernard, 2013 COA 79, ¶¶
7-13, 305 P.3d 433, and Glover, ¶¶ 20-34, both of which concern the
authentication of other forms of electronic communications, instructive.
In Bernard, a division of
this court concluded that an e-mail may be authenticated (1) through the
testimony of a witness with personal knowledge that the e-mail is what it is
claimed to be or (2) `through consideration of distinctive characteristics
shown by an examination of [the] contents and substance’ of the e-mail under
the circumstances of the case. Bernard, ¶ 10 (citing CRE
901(b)(1), (4)). The witness in Bernard testified that (1) a
printout of the contested e-mail was a true and accurate copy of the message
she had personally received from the purported sender; (2) she recognized the
e-mail address as belonging to the purported sender; and (3) the contents of
the e-mail indicated that it came from the purported sender. Id. at
¶ 11. In light of this testimony, the division concluded that the prosecution
sufficiently authenticated the e-mail as being from the purported sender and,
therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. Id. at
¶ 13.
People v. Heisler,
supra.
The Court of Appeals went on to explain that
[m]ore recently, in Glover,
a division of this court expanded the Bernard standard,
concluding that printouts of a social networking site require two levels of
authentication. Glover, ¶ 23; see also Bernard, ¶
10.
First, the proponent must authenticate
the printouts of a social networking site as actual depictions of the
site. Glover, ¶ 23. This may be done through testimony from someone
with personal knowledge of how the printouts were obtained, or through an examination
of distinctive characteristics in the printouts' content or substance. Id. at
¶¶ 23 -24.
Second, the proponent must sufficiently
authenticate the identity of the purported sender by showing that `the
communications [sent through the social networking site] were made by [the]
defendant.’ Id. at ¶¶ 23, 28. As in Bernard,
the Glover division concluded that the identity of the purported
sender must be proved `beyond confirmation that the social networking account
[was] registered to the party purporting to create [the] messages.’ Glover,
¶ 30; see also Bernard, ¶ 10. However, a witness with personal
knowledge who testifies to any combination of at least two of the following
elements would sufficiently authenticate the identity of the purported sender:
(1) the account was registered to the purported sender; (2) corroborative
evidence showed that the account was used by the purported sender; (3) the
substance of the communications was recognizable as being from the purported
sender; (4) the sender `responded to an exchange in such a way as to indicate
circumstantially that he or she was in fact the author of the communication’;
and (5) any other confirming evidence under the circumstances. Glover,
¶¶ 30-34.
We review a trial court's evidentiary
rulings for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. People, 2013 CO 57, ¶
13, 310 P.3d 58. A court abuses its discretion when its ruling is (1) based on
an erroneous understanding or application of the law; or (2) manifestly
arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. People v. Esparza-Treto, 282
P.3d 471, 480 (Colo.App.2011).
People v. Heisler,
supra.
Having outlined what is required when a Colorado court
reviews a trial court judge’s ruling on an evidentiary issue, the Court of
Appeals began its analysis of the trial judge’s ruling by explaining that
[f]or the following reasons, we
conclude that the text messages in this case were properly authenticated and,
accordingly, we perceive no error by the trial court in admitting them into
evidence.
People v. Heisler,
supra.
The court went on to explain why it found that the text
messages at issue in the case were properly authenticated:
In light of Glover and Bernard,
we conclude that authentication of text messages has two components. First, a
witness with personal knowledge must testify that printouts of text message(s)
accurately reflect the content of the message(s). Second, a witness with
personal knowledge must provide testimony establishing the identity of the
purported sender of the text message(s). Identity may be established through a
combination of at least two of the following: (1) the phone number was assigned
to or associated with the purported sender; (2) the substance of the text
message(s) was recognizable as being from the purported sender; (3) the
purported sender `responded to an exchange in such a way as to indicate
circumstantially that he or she was in fact the author of the communication’;
or (4) any other corroborative evidence under the circumstances. Glover,
¶¶ 30-34. Again, `[t]he burden to authenticate “is not high.”’ Id. at
¶ 13 (quoting Hassan, 742 F.3d at 133). If such evidence has
been presented, authentication of the text messages has been established
under CRE 901.
Applying that test here, the record
shows that, at trial, the prosecution introduced printouts of numerous text
messages that Heisler had sent to the victim. The victim authenticated this
evidence in the following ways:
• The victim testified that she
recognized the pictures of the text messages and that they were a fair and
accurate depiction of the texts she personally received.
• The victim testified that she
recognized the phone number as Heisler's, and that she would use that number to
communicate with him.
• The victim testified that she
recognized the content of the text messages as being from Heisler.
People v. Heisler,
supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that,
[b]ased on this testimony, the
prosecution moved to admit the evidence. Defense counsel objected and requested
voir dire.
During voir dire, the victim admitted
that she had deleted the text messages she sent to Heisler in response. The
defense then objected to admission of the printouts because they were not a
“true and accurate depiction of the conversations” between the victim and
Heisler. The trial court overruled this objection and admitted the texts into
evidence.
As a threshold matter, we note that
Heisler does not argue that the printouts of the text messages were not
accurate representations of the text messages the victim received. Nor
does he contest that he was the author of the text messages. Instead, Heisler
contends that the text messages were not properly authenticated because the
victim deleted her responses. We are not persuaded.
First, the record reflects that the
prosecution presented sufficient evidence that (1) the printouts of the text
messages accurately reflected the content of the messages the victim received
and (2) Heisler authored the text messages. The victim testified that the
printouts accurately reflected the texts she received, she recognized the
number as being Heisler's and she would use that number to communicate with
him, she recognized the content of the text messages as being from Heisler, and
the content of the text messages included corroborative evidence that they came
from Heisler. See Glover, ¶ 13 (noting that the
proponent's burden to authenticate the evidence is not high).
Second, the record shows that the text
messages were admitted as evidence of texts the victim received from
Heisler, not as evidence of a conversation between the victim
and Heisler. Therefore, because the victim's testimony was sufficient to
support a finding that the text messages were from Heisler (which he did not
dispute), we conclude that the printouts were properly authenticated.
To the extent that Heisler takes issue
with the victim's deletion of her responses, that issue goes to the weight of
the evidence, not its authenticity. Bernard, ¶ 12.
For these reasons, we discern no error
by the trial court in concluding that the text message evidence was properly
authenticated.
People v. Heisler,
supra.
For these and other reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed
Heisler’s conviction of harassment. People
v. Heisler, supra.
No comments:
Post a Comment