ILNews

Text messages must be separately authenticated

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined text messages are subject to separate authentication before being admitted into evidence, much like the authentication process that data saved in a computer must undergo before being admitted.

In Darby L. Hape v. State of Indiana, No. 63A01-0804-CR-175, Darby Hape was convicted of felony possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, felony resisting law enforcement, and was found to be a habitual offender. After his convictions, he discovered that during deliberations, the jury was able to turn on one of his cell phones, which had been admitted into evidence, and see text messages, including one from "Brett." The text messages weren't introduced as evidence during the trial. Hape claimed that exposure required a correction of error and permission to poll the jury regarding the prejudicial impact of the text message on its deliberations. The trial court denied his motion.

The appellate court upheld the denial of Hape's motion to poll the jury because the text messages didn't constitute extraneous prejudicial information and he didn't meet his burden under Indiana Evidence Rule 606(b) in attempting to impeach the jury verdict with testimony about the messages, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

The text messages are intrinsic to the cell phone and the jury discovered the text messages by turning on the phone that was admitted into evidence. Turning on the phone didn't constitute an extrajudicial experiment that impermissibly exposed the jury to extraneous information, wrote Judge Vaidik.

The appellate court determined the Confrontation Clause doesn't bar the text messages from "Brett" on the phone because they are not testimonial, wrote the judge. There aren't any Indiana cases involving authentication of text messages generated and stored in cell phones, but the Court of Appeals ruled the text messages should be subject to the same authentication requirement of data saved in a computer before it can be admitted into evidence.

"Even though we have determined that a text message stored in a cellular telephone is intrinsic to the telephone, a proponent may offer the substance of the text message for an evidentiary purpose unique from the purpose served by the telephone itself. Rather, in such cases, the text message must be separately authenticated pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 901(a)," Judge Vaidik wrote.

Even though the jury saw the text messages without proper authentication, it didn't rise to the level of fundamental error because the jury's exposure was harmless. The evidence against Hape is strong and compelling without the text messages, she wrote.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Hape's convictions but reversed his adjudication as a habitual offender for lack of sufficient evidence and his corresponding 30-year sentence enhancement. The matter is remanded to the trial court to issue a new sentencing order not inconsistent with the opinion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT