Criminal Practice – Authentication – Relevance

The trial court did not err in admitting photos of Facebook messages, which were properly authenticated. Further, the trial court properly determined the CAD report was relevant.

There was no error in Defendant’s trial, and we affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of First-Degree Murder. The issues on appeal were whether the trial court erred by admitting photographs of Facebook messages purportedly sent by Defendant, and a CAD report of a 911 call. Two witnesses, Shonquila Wall and Deputy Gagnon, provided pertinent testimony. Wall identified the victim’s cellphone in photographs during her testimony. Further, she testified she communicated with Defendant “[o]nly through Facebook [M]essenger” because he did not have a working phone. Wall further stated she knew the victim had communicated with Defendant, likewise only through Facebook Messenger because Defendant did not have a working phone. This is consistent with the type of circumstantial evidence this Court concluded was sufficient to authenticate the Facebook messages in Clemons. Wall’s testimony was that the use of Facebook Messenger was consistent with Defendant’s behavior. Additionally, during voir dire Deputy Gagnon testified to how he retrieved the messages from the phone, which Wall had identified at the scene as belonging to victim Frankie Davenport. Further, Deputy Gagnon also read the content of the messages, which contained references and information corroborating their authenticity. The State established at trial that Defendant and Frankie Davenport were brothers and Frankie Davenport was Defendant’s older brother, supporting the inference Defendant had sent the message because he referred to Davenport as “big bro.” These references to the nature of the sender’s relationship to Frankie Davenport, as well as to the sender’s knowledge about details of Frankie Davenport’s personal life, are sufficient “distinctive characteristics” to authenticate the messages. Therefore, the messages were properly authenticated. Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting photos of the Facebook messages.

Next, Defendant contended the CAD report of a 911 call was erroneously admitted into evidence where the trial court subsequently held the content of that call was inadmissible. Specifically, Defendant argued the trial court’s decisions to admit the CAD report showing a 911 call had been received approximately two hours after the incident and to exclude the content of the call were inconsistent. We disagreed. The trial court admitted the CAD report over Defendant’s objection that it was not relevant. First, the CAD report had a tendency to make the fact that an incident occurred in the early morning of December 10, 2020 more likely because the report showed a 911 call had been made at 3:43 a.m. Second, as the trial court articulated, the CAD report was relevant to explain why Detective Blackmon left his location. This is consistent with prior cases in which our Courts have upheld the admission of evidence to show its effect on a person involved. Defendant pointed to the trial court’s decision to exclude the content of the call as support for his argument the CAD report should have been excluded. The actual content of the call, however, is a separate evidentiary matter which the trial court, in its discretion, determined—even if relevant—was substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403. The trial court properly determined the CAD report was relevant. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting it into evidence. Consequently, there was no error in Defendant’s trial and the trial court properly entered judgment on the jury verdict.

No error.

State of North Carolina v. Jimmy Davenport (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-348-25, 15 pp.) (Tobias Hampson, J.) Appealed from Scotland County Superior Court (Taylor Browne, J.) Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Marissa K. Jensen, for the State; Marilyn G. Ozer for Defendant-Appellant. North Carolina Court of Appeals