## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O

. P D

- 0 3 1 2

- 1 1

R O N N I E T I E N D A

, J R

. , A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E F I F T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

D A L L A S C O U N T Y

P R IC E

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n f o r a u n a n i m o u s C o u r t

.

O P I N I O N

T h e a p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r

. H e p l e d t r u e t o o n e e n h a n c e m e n t c o u n t

, a n d 1

t h e j u r y a s s e s s e d p u n i s h m e n t a t t h i r t y

- f i v e y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t

. I n a n u n p u b l i s h e d o p i n i o n

,

t h e F i f t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a f

f i r m e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n

, h o l d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d

n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e f r o m M y S p a c e p a g e s t h a t t h e S t a t e b e l i e v e d

1

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 19.02.Tienda — 2

w e r e c r e a t e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t

. W e w i l l a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

. 2

F A C T S A N D P R O C E D U R A L P O S T U R E

D a v i d V a l a d e z a n d h i s t w o p a s s e n g e r s w e r e t h e t a r g e t s o f a m u l t i p l e c a r s h o o t o u t

w h i l e d r i v i n g s o u t h b o u n d i n D a l l a s o n I

- 3 5 E t o w a r d s I

- 3 0

. T h e s h o o t i n g w a s a p p a r e n t l y t h e

p r o d u c t o f s o m e t e n s i o n d i s p l a y e d b e t w e e n t w o r i v a l g r o u p s a t a n i g h t c l u b e a r l i e r t h a t

e v e n i n g

, w h e r e m e m b e r s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s g r o u p w e r e “ t h r o w i n g ” g a n g s i g n s a n d “ t a l k i n g

n o i s e ” t o V a l a d e z a n d h i s f r i e n d s

. S h o r t l y a f

t e r V a l a d e z a n d h i s p a s s e n g e r s l e f t o n e

n i g h t c l u b t o h e a d t o a n o t h e r “ a f t e r h o u r s ” c l u b

, V a l a d e z ’ s c a r u n e x p e c t e d l y c a m e u n d e r

g u n f i r e f r o m a c a r a v a n o f t h r e e o r f o u r c a r s a l s o t r a v e l i n g s o u t h b o u n d o n I

- 3 5 E t o w a r d s I

- 3 0

.

T h e a p p e l l a n t w a s a p a s s e n g e r i n o n e o f t h e c a r s i n t h e c a r a v a n

.

T e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l a s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s s p e c i f i c i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e s h o o t i n g v a r i e d

w i d e l y

. T h e w i t n e s s e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s a t l e a s t p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e s h o o t i n g ;

h o w e v e r

, t h e r e w a s i n c o n s i s t e n t t e s t i m o n y a s t o w h o f i r e d t h e f

i r s t g u n s h o t s

, w h e t h e r t h e

a p p e l l a n t w a s s e e n m e r e l y h o l d i n g a g u n o r a c t u a l l y f i r i n g a w e a p o n

, w h i c h c a r t h e a p p e l l a n t

w a s r i d i n g i n

, a n d f

r o m w h i c h c a r t h e f

a t a l s h o t s w e r e f

i r e d

. D u r i n g t h e e x c h a n g e o f f i r e

,

V a l a d e z w a s s h o t t w i c e

, c a u s i n g h i m t o l o s e c o n t r o l a n d c r a s h h i s v e h i c l e i n t o t h e h i g h w a y ’ s

c e n t e r c o n c r e t e d i v i d e r

. V a l a d e z d i e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e g u n s h o t w o u n d s s h o r t l y a f t e r b e i n g

t a k e n t o a n e a r b y h o s p i t a l

. A l t h o u g h c a r t r i d g e c a s i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a t l e a s t t w o w e a p o n s

2

Tienda v. Stat e, No. 05-09-00553- CR, 2010 WL 5129722, at *4-5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec

. 17, 2010) (not desig nated f or publication).Tienda — 3

w e r e f o u n d a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e s h o o t i n g

, t h e b u l l e t r e c o v e r e d f r o m t h e d e c e a s e d ’ s b o d y c o u l d

n o t b e m a t c h e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r w e a p o n

, a s n o f i r e a r m s w e r e e v e r r e c o v e r e d

.

D u r i n g p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e a g a i n s t t h e a p p e l l a n t

, t h e d e c e a s e d ’ s s i s t e r

,

P r i s c i l l a P a l o m o

, p r o v i d e d t h e S t a t e w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h r e e M y S p a c e p r o f i l e p a g e s

t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e g i s t e r i n g a n d m a i n t a i n i n g

. A f t e r 3

s u b p o e n a i n g M y S p a c e

. c o m f o r t h e g e n e r a l “ S u b s c r i b e r R e p o r t ” a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e a c h p r o f i l e

a c c o u n t

, t h e S t a t e p r i n t e d o u t i m a g e s o f e a c h p r o f i l e p a g e d i r e c t l y f

r o m t h e M y S p a c e

. c o m

w e b s i t e

, a n d t h e n m a r k e d t h e p r o f i l e p a g e s a n d r e l a t e d c o n t e n t a s S t a t e ’ s e x h i b i t s f o r t r i a l

.

T h e S t a t e u s e d P a l o m o a s t h e s p o n s o r i n g w i t n e s s f o r t h e s e M y S p a c e a c c o u n t s a t

g u i l t / i n n o c e n c e

, a n d

, o v e r t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s r u n n i n g o b j e c t i o n a s t o t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y o f t h e

p r o f i l e p a g e s

, t h e S t a t e w a s p e r m i t t e d t o a d m i t i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e n a m e s a n d a c c o u n t

i n f o r m a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r o f i l e s

, p h o t o s p o s t e d o n t h e p r o f i l e s

, c o m m e n t s a n d i n s t a n t

m e s s a g e s l i n k e d t o t h e a c c o u n t s

, a n d t w o m u s i c l i n k s p o s t e d t o t h e p r o f i l e p a g e s

.

T h e S t a t e h a d P a l o m o e x p l a i n h o w s h e c a m e a c r o s s t h e p r o f i l e s a n d b r o u g h t t h e m t o

t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e s u s t a i n e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s f i r s t a u t h e n t i c a t i o n

o b j e c t i o n w h e n t h e p r o s e c u t o r b e g a n a s k i n g P a l o m o q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t o f

t h e M y S p a c e p r o f

i l e s p r i o r t o i n t r o d u c i n g a n y e x h i b i t s i n t o e v i d e n c e

. A f t e r a b r i e f s i d e b a r

3

Social networking websites such as M y S p ac e and Fa cebook “ty pically allow users to

customiz e their own persona l web pag es (often known as ‘prof iles’), post photogr aphs or videos, add

music, or write a journal or blog that is published to the online world.” J ohn S. Wil son, Comment,

MySpac e, Y

our Space, or Our Space? New Frontiers in Electronic Evidenc e

, 86 O R

. L

. R E V

. 1201,

1220 (2007).Tienda — 4

c o n f e r e n c e a t t h e b e n c h w i t h d e f e n s e c o u n s e l o f

f t h e r e c o r d

, t h e p r o s e c u t o r m a r k e d t h e

r e l e v a n t M y S p a c e p r o f

i l e p r i n t o u t s a s n u m b e r e d S t a t e ’ s e x h i b i t s a n d h a d P a l o m o i d e n t i f y t h e

p r i n t o u t s a s t h e p r o f

i l e s s h e h a d f

o u n d o n M y S p a c e

. T h e p r o s e c u t o r a l s o o f f e r e d i n t o

e v i d e n c e t h e s u b s c r i b e r r e p o r t s a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g a f f i d a v i t s s u b p o e n a e d f

r o m M y S p a c e

. 4

T h e j u d g e t h e n a d m i t t e d t h e p r i n t o u t s o f t h e p r o f i l e s

, o v e r t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e

S t a t e s t i l l h a d n o t l a i d t h e p r o p e r p r e d i c a t e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e p r o f i l e s w e r e i n f

a c t w h a t t h e

S t a t e p u r p o r t e d t h e m t o b e

, n a m e l y

, d e c l a r a t i o n s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h i m s e l f h a d p o s t e d o n h i s

p e r s o n a l M y S p a c e p a g e s

.

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s u b s c r i b e r r e p o r t s

, t w o o f t h e M y S p a c e a c c o u n t s w e r e c r e a t e d b y a

“ R o n M r

. T

, ” a n d t h e t h i r d b y “ S m i l e y F a c e

, ” w h i c h i s t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s w i d e l y

- k n o w n

n i c k n a m e

. T h e a c c o u n t h o l d e r p u r p o r t e d t o l i v e i n “ D T O W N

, ” o r “ d a l l a s

, ” a n d r e g i s t e r e d

t h e a c c o u n t s w i t h a “ r o n n i e t i e n d a j r @ ” o r “ s m i l e y s

_ s h i t @ ” e m a i l a d d r e s s

. T h e S t a t e

i n t r o d u c e d m u l t i p l e p h o t o s “ t a g g e d ” t o t h e s e a c c o u n t s b e c a u s e t h e p e r s o n w h o a p p e a r e d i n

t h e p i c t u r e s a t l e a s t r e s e m b l e d t h e a p p e l l a n t

. T h e p e r s o n i s s h o w n d i s p l a y i n g g a n g

- a f f i l i a t e d

4

A total of three subscriber repor t s we re admi tted into evidenc e, one for eac h My Space

acc ount. Eac h of the three subscriber repor ts r efle cts a differ ent “Use r #” and a differ ent “Sign up

I P” number. “A computer c onnecte d to the I nterne t is assigne d an I P a ddress, which can uniquely

identify that computer at least for the time that it is connec ted.” Andre w M. Grossman, Case Note

& Comm ent, No, Don’ t IM Me – Instant Messaging, Authentication, and the Best Evidenc e Rule

, 13 G E O

. M A S O N L

. R E V . 1309, 1315-16 (Spring /Summ er 2006) . Oftentimes, the tec hnology “ca n

be m ad e t o y i el d a u ser’ s I P addre ss, and in most case s, that addre ss can be tied to a means of

acc essing the I nterne t and thus a person, just as a telephone number can be connec ted to the person

pay ing f or it.” Id . at 1335. Ther e was no testimony elicited at the appellant’s trial, howeve r, and

nothing on the fac e of the one-pa g e subscriber repor ts themselves, to expli citly indicate whether any

of the three User #s are the appellant’ s or whether any of the three Sign up I P numbers corr esponds

to a computer

either be longing to the appellant or to which he ha d acc ess.Tienda — 5

t a t t o o s a n d m a k i n g g a n g

- r e l a t e d g e s t u r e s w i t h h i s h a n d s

.

T h e m a i n p r o f

i l e p a g e s o f t h e M y S p a c e a c c o u n t s c o n t a i n e d q u o t e s b o a s t i n g “ Y o u a i n t

B L A S T I N Y o u a i n t L a s t i n ” a n d “ I l i v e t o s t a y f r e s h ! ! I k i l l t o s t a y r i c h ! ! ” U n d e r t h e h e a d i n g

“ R I P D a v i d V a l a d e z ” w a s a l i n k t o a s o n g t h a t w a s p l a y e d b y V a l a d e z ’ s c o u s i n a t V a l a d e z ’ s

f u n e r a l

. A n o t h e r m u s i c l i n k p o s t e d t o o n e o f t h e p r o f i l e s w a s a s o n g t i t l e d “ I S t i l l K i l l

. ” T h e

i n s t a n t m e s s a g e s e x c h a n g e d b e t w e e n t h e a c c o u n t h o l d e r a n d o t h e r u n i d e n t i f i e d M y S p a c e

u s e r s i n c l u d e d s p e c i f

i c r e f e r e n c e s t o o t h e r p a s s e n g e r s p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e s h o o t i n g

,

c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e s h o o t i n g

, a n d d e t a i l s a b o u t t h e S t a t e ’ s i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o l l o w i n g

t h e s h o o t i n g

. T h e a u t h o r o f t h e m e s s a g e s m a d e s p e c i f i c t h r e a t s t o t h o s e w h o h a d b e e n

“ s n i t c h i n ” a n d “ d o n t r u n s h i t b u t t h e y m o u t h

, ” a s s i g n i n g b l a m e t o o t h e r s f o r b e i n g t h e “ o n l y

r e a s o n i m o n l o c k d o w n a n d h a v e t h i s s h i t o n m y b a c k

. ” T h e a u t h o r a l s o g e n e r a l l y b o a s t e d

t o a n o t h e r u s e r t h a t “ W U T G O E S A R O U N D C O M E S A R O U N D ” a n d “ U K N O H O W W E

D O

, W E D O N ’ T C H A S E E M W E R E P A L C E E M

. ” T h e a u t h o r a c c u s e d : “ E V E R Y O N E

W U Z B U S T I N A N D T H E Y O N L Y T O L D O N M E

. ” S e v e r a l o f t h e i n s t a n t m e s s a g e s a l s o

c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t t h e a u t h o r ’ s e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r

, w h i c h w a s a c o n d i t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s

h o u s e a r r e s t w h i l e a w a i t i n g t r i a l

. 5

T h e S t a t e e l i c i t e d a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e M y S p a c e p a g e s t h r o u g h a

D a l l a s P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t g a n g u n i t o f f i c e r

, D e t e c t i v e D a n i e l T o r r e s

, d u r i n g g u i l t / i n n o c e n c e

5

All quotes are as they appea r in State’s E x h ibit 94, which contains printouts of messag es

betwee n one of the My Space acc ounts that the State asser ted belong ed to the appellant and various

other unidentified My Space use rs.Tienda — 6

a n d t h r o u g h V a l a d e z ’ s m o t h e r d u r i n g p u n i s h m e n t

. T h e o f f i c e r t e s t i f

i e d r e g a r d i n g t h e

c o m m o n u s e o f s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g m e d i a

, s u c h a s M y S p a c e

, b y g a n g s t o s t a y i n t o u c h w i t h

m e m b e r s a n d t o “ p r o m o t e ” t h e i r g a n g s b y b r a g g i n g a b o u t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n g a n g

- r e l a t e d

a c t i v i t i e s

. A t p u n i s h m e n t

, V a l a d e z ’ s m o t h e r w a s p e r m i t t e d t o t e s t i f y a b o u t h o w “ d e v a s t a t e d ”

s h e a n d h e r f

a m i l y w e r e w h e n t h e y f

o u n d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s m u s i c l i n k o n h i s p r o f i l e p a g e w i t h

t h e t i t l e “ R I P D a v i d V a l a d e z

, ” w h i c h i n h e r e y e s w a s t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s w a y o f b r a g g i n g a b o u t

k i l l i n g h e r s o n t h r o u g h t h e s o n g t h a t w a s p l a y e d a t h i s m e m o r i a l

. T h e a p p e l l a n t r e p e a t e d l y

o b j e c t e d

, d u r i n g b o t h s t a g e s o f t r i a l

, o n t h e b a s i s o f i m p r o p e r a u t h e n t i c a t i o n

, h e a r s a y

, a n d

r e l e v a n c e

.

T h r o u g h c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n o f P a l o m o

, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l e l i c i t e d t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g

t h e e a s e w i t h w h i c h a p e r s o n c o u l d c r e a t e a M y S p a c e p a g e i n s o m e o n e e l s e ’ s n a m e a n d t h e n

s e n d m e s s a g e s

, p u r p o r t e d l y w r i t t e n b y t h e p e r s o n r e f l e c t e d i n t h e p r o f

i l e p i c t u r e

, w i t h o u t

t h e i r a p p r o v a l

. D e f

e n s e c o u n s e l e m p h a s i z e d t h a t a n y c a s e

- s p e c i f i c f a c t s t h a t w e r e r e f

e r e n c e d

i n t h e M y S p a c e m e s s a g e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s e a c c o u n t s w e r e n o t f a c t s s o l e l y w i t h i n t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s k n o w l e d g e

, b u t w e r e k n o w n t o t h e d e c e a s e d ’ s f a m i l y, f r i e n d s

, a n d p r a c t i c a l l y a n y

o t h e r t h i r d p a r t y i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e c a s e

. A l t h o u g h t h e g a n g o f f i c e r

, T o r r e s

, t e s t i f

i e d t o h a v i n g

p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e u s i n g M y S p a c e t o i n v e s t i g a t e g a n g

- r e l a t e d a c t i v i t y

, w h e n a s k e d o n c r o s s

e x a m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r h e h a d a n y p a r t i c u l a r k n o w l e d g e r e g a r d i n g h o w a M y S p a c e a c c o u n t i s

c r e a t e d

, h e s t a t e d : “ N o n e

, w h a t s o e v e r

. ” T h e o f f i c e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t a n y o n e c o u l d c r e a t e

a M y S p a c e p a g e

, b u t h e h a d n e v e r c r e a t e d o n e h i m s e l f

.Tienda — 7

D u r i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s g u i l t / i n n o c e n c e c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t

, c o u n s e l a g a i n e m p h a s i z e d

t h e e a s e w i t h w h i c h a M y S p a c e a c c o u n t c o u l d b e c r e a t e d o r a c c e s s e d w i t h o u t s o m e o n e ’ s

a p p r o v a l a n d h i g h l i g h t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s f a i l u r e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e a c c o u n t s w e r e c r e a t e d b y t h e

a p p e l l a n t t h r o u g h a n y t e c h n o l o g i c a l o r e x p e r t e v i d e n c e

, f o r e x a m p l e

, b y t r a c i n g t h e I P

a d d r e s s l i s t e d i n t h e s u b s c r i b e r r e p o r t t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r

. I n s u m

, d e f e n s e

c o u n s e l a r g u e d t h a t t h e M y S p a c e e v i d e n c e w a s n e v e r a u t h e n t i c a t e d a n d w a s n o t c r e d i b l e

e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e j u r y s h o u l d c o n s i d e r i n s u p p o r t i n g a g u i l t y v e r d i c t

. T h e S t a t e ’ s c l o s i n g

a r g u m e n t s d u r i n g b o t h p h a s e s o f t r i a l i n c l u d e d m u l t i p l e M y S p a c e r e f e r e n c e s a n d s p e c i f

i c

q u o t e s f r o m t h e p r o f

i l e p a g e s

. T h e j u r y f

o u n d t h e a p p e l l a n t g u i l t y a n d a s s e s s e d p u n i s h m e n t

a t t h i r t y

- f

i v e y e a r s i n p r i s o n

.

O n a p p e a l

, t h e a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g h i s o b j e c t i o n s

t o t h e M y S p a c e e v i d e n c e

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f o u n d s u f f i c i e n t “ i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n ” i n t h e

c o m m e n t s a n d p h o t o s o n t h e M y S p a c e p a g e s t o s a t i s f y t h e f a c t o r s l a i d o u t i n T e x a s R u l e o f

E v i d e n c e 9 0 1 ( b ) ( 4 ) a n d a d m i t t h e e v i d e n c e a s a “ c o n d i t i o n a l f a c t o f a u t h e n t i c a t i o n ” t o

s u p p o r t a “ f

i n d i n g t h a t t h e p e r s o n d e p i c t e d s u p p l i e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

. ” I n s o r u l i n g

, t h e c o u r t

6

o f a p p e a l s r e l i e d f

o r a u t h o r i t y s o l e l y u p o n t h e o p i n i o n o f a n i n t e r m e d i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i n

M a r y l a n d t h a t h a s s i n c e b e e n r e v e r s e d

, a s t h e a p p e l l a n t e m p h a s i z e s n o w i n h i s b r i e f o n t h e

m e r i t s b e f

o r e t h i s C o u r t

, b y t h a t s t a t e ’ s h i g h e s t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

. W e g r a n t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s 7

6

Tienda

, supra , at *4-5.

7

Appellant’s Br ief, at 5-6

. T h e court of appea ls cited the opinion of the Court of SpecialTienda — 8

p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s e r r e d i n h o l d i n g

t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e M y S p a c e p r o f i l e s w e r e

p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d

. W e n o w a f f i r m

.

T H E A R G U M E N T S A N D T H E L A W O F A U T H E N T I C A T I O N

T h e A r g u m e n t s o f t h e P a r t i e s

I n h i s o n l y i s s u e f

o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

, t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t

e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e e l e c t r o n i c c o n t e n t o b t a i n e d f r o m M y S p a c e d u r i n g b o t h

t h e g u i l t / i n n o c e n c e a n d p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e s o f h i s t r i a l

. T h e a p p e l l a n t b r o a d l y a r g u e s t h a t

t h e S t a t e f

a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e a n y o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r i n t e d f r o m t h e s o c i a l

n e t w o r k i n g w e b s i t e ; a n d m o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y

, t h a t t h e “ c o n t e n t s o f a w e b s i t e c a n n o t

a u t h e n t i c a t e t h e w e b s i t e ” i t s e l f

. I n o t h e r w o r d s

, h e c o m p l a i n s t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t p r o v e 8

t h a t h e w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c r e a t i n g a n d m a i n t a i n i n g t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e M y S p a c e p a g e s b y

m e r e l y p r e s e n t i n g t h e p h o t o s a n d q u o t e s f r o m t h e w e b s i t e t h a t t e n d e d t o r e l a t e t o h i m

.

T h e r e f o r e

, t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n c l u d e s

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g h i s r u n n i n g o b j e c t i o n s

u n d e r T e x a s R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e R u l e 9 0 1

, a n d t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s s h o u l d n o t h a v e a f f i r m e d 9

Ap p ea ls of Maryland, Griffin v. State

, 192 Md. App. 518, 995 A.2d 791 (2010), while

acknow ledg ing that the Maryland Court of Appea ls had since g rante d discretionar y revie w. Tienda

,

supra , at *5. The Ma

ry land Court of Appe als subsequently reve rsed the judg ment of the Court of

Special Appe als of Mar

y land, in Griffin v. State , 419 Md. 343, 19 A.3d 415 (2011).

8

Appellant’s B rief, a

t 5.

9

T E X

. R. E V I D . 901.Tienda — 9

i t s r u l i n g

.

T h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s

, i n o p p o s i t i o n

, t h a t t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g p a g e s i n

t h i s c a s e c o n t a i n e d s u f

f i c i e n t l y d i s t i n c t i v e i n f

o r m a t i o n t o j u s t i f

y c o n d i t i o n a l l y s u b m i t t i n g

t h e m t o t h e j u r y f

o r i t s u l t i m a t e f

i n d i n g w h e t h e r “ t h e m a t t e r i n q u e s t i o n i s w h a t i t s p r o p o n e n t

c l a i m s ”

— h e r e

, t h a t t h e M y S p a c e p a g e s w e r e c r e a t e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t

. T h e

1 0

s p e c i f i c i t y o f t h e c o n t e n t

, w h i c h t h e S t a t e c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s “ a d m i s s i o n s ” b y t h e a p p e l l a n t

, w a s

s u f f i c i e n t t o t i e h i m t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e v i d e n c e a n d a l l o w t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r i t f o r t h a t

p u r p o s e

. A t a m i n i m u m

, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n w a s “ w i t h i n t h e z o n e

1 1

o f r e a s o n a b l e d i s a g r e e m e n t ” a n d t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d n o t b e d i s t u r b e d o n a p p e a l

. 1 2

S t a n d a r d o f R e v i e w a n d A p p l i c a b l e L a w

U n d e r T e x a s R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e R u l e 1 0 4 ( a )

, w h e t h e r o r n o t t o a d m i t e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l

i s a p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n t o b e d e c i d e d b y t h e c o u r t

. A b e d r o c k c o n d i t i o n o f a d m i s s i b i l i t y 1 3

o f e v i d e n c e i n a n y l e g a l c o n t e s t i s i t s r e l e v a n c e t o a n i s s u e i n t h e c a s e

— t h a t i s t o s a y

, i t s

t e n d e n c y t o m a k e a f

a c t o f c o n s e q u e n c e t o d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n m o r e o r l e s s

1 0

Id . 901(a)

.

1 1

State’s B rief, at 1.

1 2

Id

.

1 3

T E X

. R. E V I D . 104(a)

.Tienda — 10

p r o b a b l e

. E v i d e n c e h a s n o r e l e v a n c e i f i t i s n o t a u t h e n t i c a l l y w h a t i t s p r o p o n e n t c l a i m s i t 1 4

t o b e

. R u l e 9 0 1 ( a ) o f t h e R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e d e f i n e s a u t h e n t i c a t i o n a s a “ c o n d i t i o n

p r e c e d e n t ” t o a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e p r o p o n e n t t o m a k e a t h r e s h o l d

s h o w i n g t h a t w o u l d b e “ s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f

i n d i n g t h a t t h e m a t t e r i n q u e s t i o n i s w h a t i t s

p r o p o n e n t c l a i m s

. ” W h e t h e r t h e p r o p o n e n t h a s c r o s s e d t h i s t h r e s h o l d a s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 1 5

9 0 1 i s o n e o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n s o f a d m i s s i b i l i t y c o n t e m p l a t e d b y R u l e 1 0 4 ( a )

. T h e 1 6

t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d a d m i t p r o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e “ u p o n

, o r s u b j e c t t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e

s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f

i n d i n g o f ” a u t h e n t i c i t y

. T h e u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a n i t e m o f 1 7

e v i d e n c e i s w h a t i t s p r o p o n e n t c l a i m s t h e n b e c o m e s a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e f a c t

- f i n d e r

— t h e j u r y

,

i n a j u r y t r i a l

. I n p e r f

o r m i n g i t s R u l e 1 0 4 g a t e

- k e e p i n g f u n c t i o n

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i t s e l f n e e d 1 8

n o t b e p e r s u a d e d t h a t t h e p r o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e i s a u t h e n t i c

. T h e p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n f o r t h e

t r i a l c o u r t t o d e c i d e i s s i m p l y w h e t h e r t h e p r o p o n e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e h a s s u p p l i e d f a c t s t h a t

a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a r e a s o n a b l e j u r y d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e h e h a s p r o f f e r e d

1 4

T E X

. R. E V I D . 401 & 402.

1 5

T E X

. R. E V I D . 901(a)

.

1 6

See T E X

. R. E V I D

. 104(a)

, 901(a) ; Druery v. State

, 225 S.W .3d 491, 502 (Tex. Crim. App.

2007).

1 7

T E X

. R. E V I D . 104(b).

1 8

Druery

, supra

.Tienda — 11

i s a u t h e n t i c

. 1 9

A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f a t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g o n s u c h a p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n o f

a d m i s s i b i l i t y i s d e f

e r e n t i a l ; t h e s t a n d a r d i s a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

. I f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g t h a t 2 0

a j u r y c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y f i n d p r o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e a u t h e n t i c i s a t l e a s t “ w i t h i n t h e z o n e o f

r e a s o n a b l e d i s a g r e e m e n t

, ” a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t s h o u l d n o t i n t e r f e r e

. 2 1

E v i d e n c e m a y b e a u t h e n t i c a t e d i n a n u m b e r o f w a y s

, i n c l u d i n g b y d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y

f r o m a w i t n e s s w i t h p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e

, b y c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r a u t h e n t i c a t e d e v i d e n c e

,

o r b y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e

. C o u r t s a n d l e g a l c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e r e a c h e d a v i r t u a l 2 2

c o n s e n s u s t h a t

, a l t h o u g h r a p i d l y d e v e l o p i n g e l e c t r o n i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t e c h n o l o g y o f t e n

p r e s e n t s n e w a n d p r o t e a n i s s u e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e l e c t r o n i c a l l y g e n e r a t e d

,

t r a n s m i t t e d a n d / o r s t o r e d i n f o r m a t i o n

, i n c l u d i n g i n f

o r m a t i o n f

o u n d o n s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g w e b

s i t e s

, t h e r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e a l r e a d y i n p l a c e f o r d e t e r m i n i n g a u t h e n t i c i t y a r e a t l e a s t g e n e r a l l y

1 9

Id

.

2 0

Id

.

2 1

Montgomery

v. State, 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (opinion on reh’g ).

2 2

See T E X

. R. E V I D

. 901(b)( 1), (3)- (4) (“ (b) Illu strat ions. By way of illust ration only

, and not

by way of limit ation, the following are examples of authentica tion or identification confor ming with

the requirements of this rule: (1 ) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter

is what it is claimed to be. * * * (3) Comparison by trier or expe rt witness. Comparison by the trier

of fac t or by expert witness with specimens which have been found by the court to be g enuine. (4)

Distinctive characte ristics and the like. Appea ranc e, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other

distinctive chara cter istics, taken in conjunction with circ umstances.” ).Tienda — 12

“ a d e q u a t e t o t h e t a s k

. ” W i d e l y r e g a r d e d a s t h e w a t e r s h e d o p i n i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e 2 3

a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f v a r i o u s f o r m s o f e l e c t r o n i c a l l y s t o r e d a n d / o r t r a n s m i t t e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s

L o r r a i n e v

. M

a r k e l A m e r i c a n I

n s u r a n c e C o

. T h e r e t h e f e d e r a l m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e o b s e r v e d 2 4

t h a t “ a n y s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t o a u t h e n t i c a t e e l e c t r o n i c e v i d e n c e n e e d s

t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t

, g i v e n t h e w i d e d i v e r s i t y o f s u c h e v i d e n c e

, t h e r e i s n o s i n g l e a p p r o a c h

t o a u t h e n t i c a t i o n t h a t w i l l w o r k i n a l l i n s t a n c e s

. ” R a t h e r

, a s w i t h t h e a u t h e n t i c a t i o n o f a n y 2 5

k i n d o f p r o f

f e r e d e v i d e n c e

, t h e b e s t o r m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e m e t h o d f o r a u t h e n t i c a t i n g e l e c t r o n i c

e v i d e n c e w i l l o f

t e n d e p e n d u p o n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e

2 3

Steven Goode, The Admissibili ty of E lectronic Evidenc e

, 29 R E V

. L I T I G . 1, 7 (F all 2009);

see Sandra Hornbe rg er, Comment, Social Networking W ebsites: Impac t on Liti

gation and the Legal

Profession in Ethics, Discove ry, and Evidenc e

, 27 T O U R O L

. R E V

. 279, 304-05 (2011) (opining that

“the exis ting evidentiar

y rules sufficie ntly addre ss any leg al issues surrounding the admission of

information obtained from social networking websites”) ; Kather ine Minotti

, Comment, Evidenc e:

The Adve nt of

Digital Diaries: Implications of Social Networking W

eb Sites for the Le g a l P r o fe s sion

, 60 S.C. L

. R E V

. 1057, 1074 (“the curr ent fe dera l rules ar e ade quate” to g uide courts “whe n fac ing

evidentiar y issues reg arding social networking web sites”); Grossman, supra

, at 1311 (“judg es may

express t h e ap propriate skepticism due instant messag ing evidenc e within the fra mework of the

Rules [of Evidence ].”); In the Inte rest of F.P., a Minor , 878 A.2d 91, 95 (Pa. 2005) (re jecting the

need to “cr eate a whole n ew b o d y of l aw just to deal with [t he admissi bility of] e-ma ils or i nstant

messag es” and opining that “e- mail messag es and simil ar forms of electronic communi ca tion can

be proper ly authentica ted within the exis ting fra mework” of the rules of evidenc e); State v. Eleck

, 130 Conn. App. 632, 640, 23 A.3d 818, 823 (2011) (“We ag ree that the emer g ence of social media

such as e -mail, text messag ing and networking sites like Fa cebook may not r equire the cre ation of

new r ules of authe ntication with respec t to authorship.”).

2 4

241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007). See also Paul W. Grimm, Michae l V. Z icca rdi & Alexander

W. Major, Back

to the Future: L orraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. and New Findings on

the Admissibilit

y of Elec tronically Stored Information , 42 A K R O N L

. R E V . 357 (2009).

2 5

Lorraine

, supra , at 553-54.Tienda — 13

p a r t i c u l a r c a s e

. 2 6

L i k e o u r o w n c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s h e r e i n T e x a s

, j u r i s d i c t i o n s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y h a v e 2 7

r e c o g n i z e d t h a t e l e c t r o n i c e v i d e n c e m a y b e a u t h e n t i c a t e d i n a n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t w a y s

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h F e d e r a l R u l e 9 0 1 a n d i t s v a r i o u s s t a t e a n a l o g s

. P r i n t o u t s o f e m a i l s

, i n t e r n e t

c h a t r o o m d i a l o g u e s

, a n d c e l l u l a r p h o n e t e x t m e s s a g e s h a v e a l l b e e n a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e

w h e n f o u n d t o b e s u f

f i c i e n t l y l i n k e d t o t h e p u r p o r t e d a u t h o r s o a s t o j u s t i f y s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e

j u r y f o r i t s u l t i m a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

. S u c h p r i m a f a c i e a u t h e n t i c a t i o n h a s 2 8

2 6

See, e.g.

, Druery

, supra

, at 502-03 (authe ntication of letters); DeLuna v. State

, 711 S.W .2d

44, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (photog raphs) ; Ex parte W atson

, 606 S.W .2d 902, 905 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1980) (ha

ndwriting compar ison).

2 7

See

, e.g

., Manuel v. State

, ___ S.W .3d

___, No. 12-09-00454- CR, 2011 WL 3837561, at *7

(Tex. A pp.—Ty ler Aug

. 31, 2011, no pet.) (text messag es); Shea v. State

, 167 S.W .3d 98, 104-05

(Tex. Ap p .—Waco 2005, pet. ref ’d) (ema ils); Massimo v. State

, 144 S.W .3d 210, 215-17 (Tex.

App.—For

t Worth 2004, no pet.) (emails).

2 8

See Jack son v. State , 2009 Ark. App. 466, 320 S.W.3d 13 (2009) (Ya hoo instant messag e

conver sations); Bobo v. State

, 102 Ark. App. 329, 285 S.W .3d 270 (2008) (ema ils); Hammontree

v. State

, 283 Ga. App. 736, 642 S.E.2d 412 (2007) (interne t instant messag e conver sation); Simon

v. State , 279 Ga. App. 844, 632 S.E.2d 723 (2006) (e mails); Ford v. State , 274 Ga. App. 695, 617

S.E.2d 26 2 (2 0 0 5 ) (i n t erne t chat room); State v. Glass

, 146 I daho 77, 190 P.3d 896 (on-line

conver sation); People v. Chromik

, 408 I ll. App.3d 1028, 946 N.E.2d 1039 (2011) (text messag e);

People v . Downin , 357 I ll.App.3d 193, 828 N .E.2d 341 (2005) ( email); Commonwealth v. Purdy

, 459 Mass. 442, 945 N.E.2d 372 (2011) (ema ils); Commonwealth v. Amaral

, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 671,

941 N.E.2d 1143 (2011) (ema i l s ); K ea r l ey v. State

, 843 So. 2d 66 (Miss. App. 2002) ( emails);

People v. Clevensti ne

, 68 A.D.3d 1448, 891 N.Y.S.2d 511 (2009) (My Space instant messag es);

State v. Thompson

, 777 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2010) (text messag es); In the Interest of F.P., a Minor

, 878 A.2d 91 (Pa. 2005) (instant messag es); State v. Taylor

, 178 N. C

. Ap p

. 395, 632 S.E.2d 218

(2006) (text messag es); Bloom v. Commonwealth

, 262 Va. 814, 554 S.E.2d 84 (2 0 0 1) (instant

messag es); United States v. Gagliardi

, 506 F.3d 140 (2 Cir. 2007) (ema ils and internet chat room); n d

United States v. Barlow

, 568 F.3d 215 (5 Cir. 2009) (Ya hoo instant messag e conver sations); t h

United States v. Tank

, 200 F.3d 627 (9 Cir. 2000) (interne t chat room); United States v. Simpson

, t h

152 F.3d 1241 (10 Cir. 1998) (interne t chat room); United States v. Siddiqui

, 235 F.3d 1318 (11 t h t hTienda — 14

t a k e n v a r i o u s f

o r m s

. I n s o m e c a s e s

, t h e p u r p o r t e d s e n d e r a c t u a l l y a d m i t t e d t o a u t h o r s h i p

,

e i t h e r i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t

, o r w a s s e e n c o m p o s i n g i t

. I n o t h e r s

, t h e b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s o f a n 2 9 3 0

i n t e r n e t s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r o r a c e l l p h o n e c o m p a n y h a v e s h o w n t h a t t h e m e s s a g e o r i g i n a t e d

w i t h t h e p u r p o r t e d s e n d e r ’ s p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r o r c e l l p h o n e u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h

i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o b e l i e v e t h a t o n l y t h e p u r p o r t e d s e n d e r w o u l d h a v e h a d a c c e s s t o t h e

c o m p u t e r o r c e l l p h o n e

. S o m e t i m e s t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n h a s c o n t a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t o n l y 3 1

Cir. 2000) (ema il).

2 9

Jack son

, supra

, Ark. App. at 469, S.W .3d at 16 (de fenda nt admitted to police that he had

eng ag ed in instant messag e conver sations and acknow ledg ed transcr ipts as acc urate ); Bobo

, supra

(def endant admitted sending emails, only deny ing some of the content); Simon

, supra

, Ga. App. at

847, S.E.2d at 726 (def

endant admitted to two witnesses, includin g p o li c e o f f icer

, that he participa ted

in the email exchang e); Ford

, supra

, Ga. App. at 6 9 7

, n

. 7

, S.E.2d at 266, n.7 (def endant g ave

statement to police admitting to eng agi n g in the on-line chat) ; Kearley

, supra

, at 70 (def endant

admitted to police that he sent emails); Thompson

, supra

, at 621-22 (def endant’ s husband testified

that he rec eived text messag es from what he knew to be her phone number and that she signe d them

in a d i s t i n ctive manner with which he was familiar, and the defe ndant admitted sending text

messag es from her phone to her husband’s phone that day ); Bloom

, supra

, Va. at 821, S.E.2d at 87

(def endant a dmitted to poli ce of fice r that he ha d communicated with instant messag e recipient on

evening in question).

3 0

Massimo

, supra

, at 213 (def endant was “witnessed” to have sent simil arly threa tening email

to rec ipient in the past); Clevenstine

, supra

, A.D.3d at 1450-51, N.Y.S.2 d at 5 1 4 (“ a leg al

compliance office r for My Space explained that the messag es on th e comput er disk had been

exchang ed by users of acc ounts cre ated by defe ndant and the victims, and defe ndant’s wife rec alled

the sexually

expli cit conver sations she viewed in the de fenda nt’s My Space a ccount while on the ir

computer” ).

3 1

Bobo

, supra

, Ark. App. at 335, S.W .3d at 275 (for ensic computer expert testified that some

of the emails “matche d a temporar y unique I P internet addre s s fo r” t h e defe ndant’s computer) ;

Hammontree

, supra

, Ga. App. at 739, S.E.2d at 415 (interne t messag e conver sation orig inated from

defe ndant’s son’s acc ount, but messag es signe d by the defe ndant, he had acc ess to son’s computer,

and son denied being author); Chromik

, su p ra

, I ll. App. at 1047-48, N.E.2d at 1056-57 (phone

rec ords show text messag es sent from defe ndant’s phone number at particula r date and time alleg ed,Tienda — 15

t h e p u r p o r t e d s e n d e r c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o k n o w

. S o m e t i m e s t h e p u r p o r t e d s e n d e r h a s 3 2

r e s p o n d e d t o a n e x c h a n g e o f e l e c t r o n i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n s u c h a w a y a s t o i n d i c a t e

c i r c u m s t a n t i a l l y t h a t h e w a s i n f a c t t h e a u t h o r o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o m m u n i c a t i o n

, t h e

a u t h e n t i c a t i o n o f w h i c h i s i n i s s u e

. A n d s o m e t i m e s o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, p e c u l i a r t o t h e 3 3

f a c t s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e

, h a v e s u f f i c e d t o e s t a b l i s h a t l e a s t a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g o f

and defe ndant admitted sending some of them, acknow ledg ing acc urac y of transcr i pts); Purdy

,

supra

, Mass

. at 450-51, N.E.2d at 381 (ema ils orig inated from email account bearing defe ndant’s

name and that he admitted was his, wer e found on computer he acknow ledg ed was his, and contained

information about his business that was, if not unique, then at least “unusual” ).

3 2

Downin

, supra

, I ll. App. 3d at 195, N.E.2d at 344-45 (victim knew defe ndant persona lly

, had

exchang ed emails with him in the past at an email addre ss she knew to be his, and the email in issue

came from his addre ss, was responsive to an email she had sent him, and “conta ined information that

would be known exclusi v el y t o ” h i m); Taylor

, supra

, N.C. App. at 414, S.E.2d at 230-31 (text

messag es identified purported sender by name and descr ibed car he would be driving on a particula r

occa sion); Simpson

, supra

, at 1250 (def endant identified himself by name and email addre ss in the

cours e o f i n t erne t chat room communications, and sear ch of his home reve aled specific written

information found next to his computer that had been convey ed to him via those communications);

Siddiqui

, supra

, at 1322-23 (ema ils purported to come from d ef en d an t ’s known email addre ss,

ref err ed to the author by defe ndant’s nickname, and contained allusions to events and circ umstances

that only defe ndant could re asonably be expected to know a

bout).

3 3

Shea

, supra

, at 105 (def

endant called rec ipient to confirm that she had rec eived his email);

Glass

, supra

, I daho at 82, P.3d a t 901 (in on-line conver sation, defe ndant identifies himself by his

middle name and then appea rs at a time and place ag ree d to, and in a car acc urate ly descr ibed, in the

conver sation); Amaral

, supra

, Mass. App. Ct. at 674, N.E.2d at 1147 (def endant included photo and

phone number

in emails, which prove d to be his

, and one email “indicated t hat [ he] would be at a

cer tain place at a cer

tain time, and [he] appea

red at that place and time”); Bloom

, supra (def endant

reve aled his true name and cer tain biogr aphica l inf

ormation that was acc urate

, and appea red at the

time and place wher e he had ag ree d to meet rec ipient); Gagliardi

, supra

, at 143 (def endant showed

up at meeting place arr ang ed during the course of exchang e of elec tronic messag es); Barlow

, supra

,

at 218 (def

endant arr ang ed via Yahoo instant me ssag es to me et at a state park, and appea red at the

appointed place and time, admitting to police that he was there to meet the rec ipient); Tank

, supra

,

at 630-31 (def

endant admitted that scre en name used in text mes s ages was his, and witnesses

testified that “whe n they ar ra n ged a meeting with the person who used [t hat scre en name], it was

Tank who showe d up”).Tienda — 16

a u t h e n t i c a t i o n

. 3 4

H o w e v e r

, m i n d f

u l t h a t t h e p r o v e n a n c e o f s u c h e l e c t r o n i c w r i t i n g s c a n s o m e t i m e s b e

o p e n t o q u e s t i o n

— c o m p u t e r s c a n b e h a c k e d

, p r o t e c t e d p a s s w o r d s c a n b e c o m p r o m i s e d

, a n d

c e l l p h o n e s c a n b e p u r l o i n e d

— c o u r t s i n o t h e r c a s e s h a v e h e l d t h a t n o t e v e n t h e p r i m a f a c i e

d e m o n s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e d t o s u b m i t t h e i s s u e o f a u t h e n t i c a t i o n t o t h e j u r y h a s b e e n s a t i s f i e d

. 3 5

3 4

Manuel

, supra

, at *8 (text messag es orig inat ed fr o m phone number that the rec ipient

rec og nized to be the defe ndant’s, from which number she had also rec eived various voice messag es

from which she rec og nized the defe ndant’s voice) ; In the Interest of F.P., a Minor

, supra

, at 95

(instant messag es purportedly sent by defe ndant ref ere nced him by name as the sender

, and threa ts

ma d e a n d e v e n ts d iscussed there in mirrore d animosity that defe ndant had display ing toward r e c ip ie n t

contempora

neously with the period during which messag es we re se nt).

3 5

See People v. Bec kley

, 185 Cal. App. 4t h 509, 518, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362, 368-6 9 (2 0 1 0 )

(purpor ted roster of g ang members which appea red on a web pag e printed from the internet was not

proper ly authenticated where sponsoring poli ce office r di d not know who compiled i t and did not

explain the ba sis for his asser tion that the g ang itself did so) ; Eleck

, supra

, Conn. A

pp. at 642-43,

A.3d at 824 (p ri n tout of i nstant messag e ex chang e from defe ndant’s Face book pag e not proper ly

authentica ted just beca

use the messag es appea

red to come from the purported sender’s Fa ce b o ok

acc ount; the m es sag es fail to “re flec t distinct information that only [t he sender ] would have

possessed reg arding the defe ndant or the c hara cter of their rela tionship”); Hollie v. State

, 298 Ga.

App. 1, 3, 679 S.E.2d 4 7

, 5 0 (2 0 0 9 ) (t houg h email showed on its fac e that it orig inated from

purported sender ’s email addre ss, “ this a lone does not pr ove its g enuinene ss”); Commonwealth v.

W illiams

, 456 Mass. 857, 869, 926 N.E.2d 1162, 1172-73 (2010) (m es s age n o t proper ly

authentica ted, even though it came from purport ed s en d er’s My Space pag e, beca use “ther e is no

testimony (fr om [t he rec ipient] or another ) reg arding how secur e such a Web pag e is, who can acc ess

a My Space Web pag e, whether codes are neede d for such acc ess, et c. [

, ] ” and also no testimony

circ umstantially to “identify the person who actua lly sent the communication”) ; People v. Lenihan

, 30 Misc. 3d 289, 293, 911 N. Y. S

. 2 d 588, 591-92 (2010) (“de fenda nt could not authentica te”

photogr aphs take n from a My Space w ebsite because he “did not know who took [ them] or posted

them on My Space” ); Commonwealth v. Koch

, ___ A.3d

___, 2011 WL 4336634, at *6 (Pa. Super.

Ct. 2011) (cell phone tex t messag es re q u i re m ore for authentication “than mere confirmation that

the num ber or addre ss belo n g ed to” the purported sender and were inadmissi ble i n the absence of

“conte x tual clues in the

. . . messag es themselves tending to reve al the identity of t h e s en d er ”) ;

United States v. J

ackson , 208 F.3d 633, 638 ( 7 Cir. 2000) (posting on white suprema cist g roup’s t h

internet web site not authentica ted beca use no showing that the g roup actua lly posted it as opposed

to the defe ndant “her self, who was a skilled computer user” ); St. Clair v. Johnny’ s Oyster & Shrimp,Tienda — 17

T h a t a n e m a i l o n i t s f

a c e p u r p o r t s t o c o m e f

r o m a c e r t a i n p e r s o n ’ s e m a i l a d d r e s s

, t h a t t h e

r e s p o n d e n t i n a n i n t e r n e t c h a t r o o m d i a l o g u e p u r p o r t s t o i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f

, o r t h a t a t e x t

m e s s a g e e m a n a t e s f

r o m a c e l l p h o n e n u m b e r a s s i g n e d t o t h e p u r p o r t e d a u t h o r

— n o n e o f t h e s e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, w i t h o u t m o r e

, h a s t y p i c a l l y b e e n r e g a r d e d a s s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f

i n d i n g

o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

. 3 6

A N A L Y S I S

I n t h i s c a s e

, t h e i n t e r n a l c o n t e n t o f t h e M y S p a c e p o s t i n g s

— p h o t o g r a p h s

, c o m m e n t s

,

a n d m u s i c

— w a s s u f

f i c i e n t c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e s u c h t h a t

a r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r c o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h a t t h e y w e r e c r e a t e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t

.

T h a t c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n c l u d e d :

• T h e f

i r s t M y S p a c e b u s i n e s s r e c o r d I

. D

. i s # 1 2 0 8 4 1 3 4 1

. T h e

o f f i c i a l M y S p a c e S u b s c r i b e r R e p o r t l i s t s t h e U s e r a s “ F i r s t

N a m e : r o n ; L a s t N a m e : m r

. t ” w i t h a n e m a i l a d d r e s s o f

“ s m i l e y s

_ s h i t @

. ” [ W i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s n i c k

n a m e i s “ S m i l e y

. ” ] T h e c i t y i s l i s t e d a s “ D T O W N

. ”

• T h e S u b s c r i b e r R e p o r t f o r M y S p a c e U s e r # 3 0 0 5 7 4 1 5 1 l i s t s t h e

Inc.

, 76 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774-75 (S.D. Texas 1999) (ra ndom posting on internet web site cannot be

authentica ted bec ause untrustwor thy , g iven that “[a]ny one ca n put any thing on the I

nterne t”).

3 6

See Goode, supra

, at 10 (“the mere fac t that an e-ma il bear s a particula r e-ma il addre ss will

often prove inadequa te to a uthenticate the identity of the author; ty pically courts demand at least a

littl e more evidenc e”) ; Purdy

, supra

, Mass. at 451, N.E.2d at 381 (“Evide nce that the defe ndant’s

name is written as the author of an e-ma il or that the elec tronic communica tion origina tes from a n

e-ma il or social networking Web site such as Fa cebook or My Space that bear s the defe ndant’s name

is not sufficie nt alone to authentica te the elec tronic communication as having been authore d or sent

by the defe ndant.”) ; Koch

, supra

, at *6 (“I n the majority of courts to have considere d the question,

the mere fac t that an e-ma il bear s a particula r e-ma il addre ss is inadequa te to authentica te the identity

of the a uthor; ty pically , court de mand additional evidenc e.”)

.Tienda — 18

o w n e r a s “ F i r s t N a m e : r o n ; L a s t n a m e : M r

. T ” w i t h a n e m a i l

a d d r e s s o f “ r o n n i e t i e n d a j r @

. ” A s w i t h t h e f i r s t M y S p a c e

l i s t i n g

, t h e c i t y f

o r t h i s l i s t i n g i s “ D * T o w n

. ” T h e z i p c o d e i s

7 5 2 1 2

.

• T h e S u b s c r i b e r R e p o r t f o r M y S p a c e U s e r # 4 3 5 4 9 9 7 6 6 l i s t s t h e

o w n e r a s “ F i r s t N a m e : S M I L E Y ; L a s t N a m e : F A C E ” w i t h a n

e m a i l a d d r e s s o f r o n n i e t i e n d a j r @

. T h e c i t y f

o r t h i s l i s t i n g i s

“ d a l l a s ” a n d t h e z i p c o d e i s 7 5 2 1 2

.

• T h e f

i r s t M y S p a c e p a g e o f U s e r # 1 2 0 8 4 1 3 4 1 o f f e r e d i n t o

e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n s a p h o t o g r a p h o f t h e a p p e l l a n t u n d e r t h e t i t l e 3 7

“ S M I L E Y F A C E

. ” T h e p h o t o g r a p h s h o w s t h e a p p e l l a n t p u l l i n g

a s h i r t u p o v e r t h e b o t t o m h a l f o f h i s f a c e

. T h e t a t t o o s o n h i s

a r m s

, h o w e v e r

, a r e c l e a r l y v i s i b l e

. T h e r e i s a d a t e s t a m p o n t h e

p h o t o g r a p h o f “ 0 3 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 7 1 7 : 0 9

. ” 3 8

• T o t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s p h o t o g r a p h o n t h a t M y S p a c e

p a g e i s t h e f

o l l o w i n g :

“ Y o u a i n t B L A S T I N

3 7

Priscilla Palomo, the witness who sponsored the exhibi ts, ident i fi ed the My Space

photogr aphs as being of the appellant. Detec tive Daniel Torre s also identified them as being of the

appellant. The trial judge could also compar e the photogr aphs of the person on the My Space pag es

(during trial they

wer e downloade d from a CD a nd wer e in color and enlarg ed for clar ity ; that CD

i s i n t h e ap p ell ate rec ord) with the appellant sitti ng at the defe nse table. Suffice it to say that t h e

person in the My Space photogr aphs has distinctive fea tures and very distinctive tattoos on his body

, neck, and arms. I n many of the photogr aphs, he is wea ring the same distinctive g lasses and a square

ear ring

. Although some of the x eroxed copies of the photogr aphs in the repor ter’s rec ord are fuzz y

and unclea

r, the ones on the CD are not. One witness, who was at the club with the appellant on the

night of the murder, testified that the appellant has the number “18” tattooed on the back of his head.

One of the witnesses in the car with David Valade z, rec og nized the appellant as the shooter beca use

he had the number “18” tattooed on his head. One of the My Space photos shows the appellant with

the number “18” tattooed on his head. Fur therm ore, one of the State’s witnesses had alre ady

identified a photogr aph of the appellant and h i s fr i en d “N u -Nu” taken on the night of David

Valade z’s murder. The appellant’ s appea ranc e in that photogr ap h m at ch es his appea ranc e in the

My Space photog raphs.

3 8

David Va ladez was murde red on June 25, 2007, about four months later

.Tienda — 19

Y o u a i n t L a s t i n ”

M a l e

2 1 y e a r s o l d

D T o w n

, T e x a s

U n i t e d S t a t e s

L a s t L o g i n : 9 / 4 / 2 0 0 7 3 9

• B e l o w t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s p h o t o g r a p h a n d t h e c a p t i o n o n t h a t

M y S p a c e p a g e i s t h e l e g e n d “ R I P D a v i d V a l a d e z ” a n d a m u s i c

b u t t o n w h i c h

, a c c o r d i n g t o P r i s c i l l a P a l o m a

, p l a y e d t h e s o n g

t h a t w a s p l a y e d a t D a v i d V a l a d e z ’ s f u n e r a l

.

• O n t h e M y S p a c e p a g e f o r U s e r # 3 0 0 5 7 4 1 5 1

, t h e r e i s a

p h o t o g r a p h o f t h e a p p e l l a n t

, b a r e

- c h e s t e d

, w i t h h i s g a n g

t a t t o o s

— i n c l u d i n g “ T a n g o B l a s t ” w r i t t e n a c r o s s h i s c h e s t

. 4 0

• T h e M y S p a c e p a g e i s t i t l e d “ M R

. S M I L E Y F A C E ” e v e n t h o u g h

t h e S u b s c r i b e r R e p o r t l i s t t h e U s e r ’ s n a m e a s “ r o n M r

. T ” a n d

h i s e m a i l a d d r e s s a s “ r o n n i e t i e n d a j r @

. ”

• B e s i d e t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s p h o t o g r a p h o n t h a t M y S p a c e p a g e i s t h e

f o l l o w i n g :

“ I L O V E D R A M A S O

M U C H C U Z M Y L I F E

I S S O R O U G H ! ! !

A N Y T H I N G E L S E

W O U L D N ’ T S E E M

N O R M A L ! ! !

3 9

T h e ap p el l an t was 21 on this date. David Valade z was murdere d a littl e more than two

months earlier

.

4 0

This photogr aph is an appar ent self-por trait taken with a smart phone in a mirror. Detec tive

Torre s testified t hat “Tang o Bla st” and “NS” ref err ed to a local street ga

ng and that a person with

these tattoos would be a

member of

the g ang

.Tienda — 20

M a l e

2 2 y e a r s o l d

D * T o w n

, T e x a s

U n i t e d S t a t e s

L a s t L o g i n : 5 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 8 4 1

• B e l o w t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s p h o t o g r a p h a n d t h e c a p t i o n o n t h a t

M y S p a c e p a g e i s t h e m u s i c b u t t o n f o r t h e “ 5 0 C e n t I S t i l l K i l l b y

d j B a l i ” s o u n d c l i p

.

• B e l o w t h a t c a p t i o n i s t h e f o l l o w i n g :

M R

. S M I L E Y F A C E ’ S I N T E R E S T S

G e n e r a l A I N T P R O U D O F M Y P A S T B U T

I M L I V I N N D A P R E S E N T N

A L W A Y S P L A N I N 4 D A F U T U R E ! ! !

N S X V 1 1 1 S T 4 2

• A l s o o n t h e M y S p a c e P r o f i l e p a g e f

o r U s e r # 3 0 0 5 7 4 1 5 1 i s a

l a t e r p h o t o g r a p h o f a b a r e

- c h e s t e d a p p e l l a n t

, a g a i n s h o w i n g h i s

t a t t o o “ T a n g o B l a s t

. ” 4 3

• T h a t p h o t o g r a p h c a r r i e s t h e h e a d i n g : M r

. O N E O F A K I N D

.

• B e s i d e t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s p h o t o g r a p h o n t h a t M y S p a c e p a g e i s t h e

f o l l o w i n g :

4 1

The a ppellant was 22 y ear s old as of this date.

4 2

XVI I I is the Roman numera l for 18. Detec tive Torre s testified that the term “NS XV111

ST” means the N orth Side 18 Street, which is a pa rticular “ North Side g ang located in the G rand t h

Prairie are of the metroplex.” The number 18 on the My Space Pag e matches the number 18 tattooed

on the bac k of the a

ppellant’s hea d.

4 3

This is another appar ent self-por trait of the appellant taken with a smart phone in a mirror,

showing his “Tang o Bla st” che st tattoo, as w ell as the tattoos on his ar ms, posted on the My Space

pag e for User #435499766, reg istered to “SMI L EY FAC E ” wi t h an email addre ss of

“ r o n n i e t i e n d a

j r @ .”Tienda — 21

“ D I S I S W H O I A M ! ! !

D O N ’ T L I K E I T F U C K

Y O U ! ! ! ”

M a l e

2 2 y e a r s o l d

D * T o w n

, T e x a s

U n i t e d S t a t e s

L a s t L o g i n : 9 / 5 / 2 0 0 8 4 4

• O n t h e r i g h t h a n d s i d e o f t h e p a g e i s t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t :

M r

. O N E O F A K I N D I L I V E T O S T A Y F R E S H ! ! I K I L L T O

S T A Y R I C H ! ! N O T H E R W O R D S I M A G O T O W A R B O U T

M Y S H I T ! !

• T h e M y S p a c e U s e r # 3 0 0 5 7 4 1 5 1 m e s s a g e p a g e c o n t a i n s

n u m e r o u s m e s s a g e s t o o t h e r M y S p a c e u s e r s

. O n l y t h e 5 3 4 5

m e s s a g e s s e n t b e t w e e n 2 : 0 0 p

. m

. a n d 9 : 4 4 p

. m

. o n S e p t e m b e r

2 1

, 2 0 0 8

, w e r e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e

. T h e m e s s a g e s t h a t

i n d i c a t e t h a t i t i s t h e a p p e l l a n t h i m s e l f w h o i s t h e c r e a t o r

, o w n e r

,

a n d u s e r o f t h i s M y S p a c e a c c o u n t i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g :

• A t 2 : 0 9 p

. m

. t h e U s e r s e n t a m e s s a g e t o U s e r # 7 3 5 7 6 3 1 4 : “ S H I T

C A N U B E L I E V E I A L R E A D Y B E E N O N D I S M O N I T O R A

Y E A R N O W A N D S H I T A I N T N O T E L L I N G W H E N A

N I G G A G O N E G E T O F F D I S H O E ” 4 6

4 4

The a ppellant was 22 y ear s old as of this date.

4 5

Torre s, the Dallas g ang office r, testified that g ang members freque ntly communicate with

eac h other throug h elec tronic social media , including My Space.

4 6

Acc ording to the Clerk’s Record, the appellant was rele ased on pretria l bond with an ankle

monitor on October 24, 2007. One of the photogr aphs on the My Space pag e for User #435499766

(r eg istered to “SMI L EY FACE” with an email addre ss of “ronnie tiendajr@” ) is of the app el l an t

lounging in a chair with a g old chain hang ing down his chest, wea ring brig ht white sneake rs and an

ankle monitor. Another My Space photogr aph

, associated with User #120841341, shows theTienda — 22

• A t 2 : 1 7 p

. m

. t h e U s e r s e n t a m e s s a g e t o t h e s a m e U s e r : “ S H I T

I T A I N T M E I T T H E S T A T E S E T T I N I T O F F A N D S I N C E I

H A V E S N I T C H E S O N M E T H E Y T R Y N A G E T A N I G G A

L O C K E D U P ”

• A l s o a t 2 : 1 7 p

. m

. , t h e U s e r s e n t a m e s s a g e t o U s e r # 1 0 3 4 1 0 5 6 5 :

“ U K N O M E A N D U M Y N I G G A S O U W A N T T O F U C K

H I M U P U K N O H O W W E D O

, W E D O N T C H A S E E M W E

R E P A L C E E M ”

• A t 2 : 2 1 p

. m

. t h e U s e r s e n t a n o t h e r m e s s a g e t o U s e r

# 1 0 3 4 1 0 5 6 5 : “ I S I T D A T F R I E N D L Y A S S N I G G A I N A L L

D E M P I X A N D S H I T J U S P L A Y I T C O O W U T G O E S

A R O U N D C O M E S A R O U N D Y A F E E L M E ”

• A t 2 : 2 2 p

. m

. t h e U s e r s e n t a m e s s a g e t o U s e r # 7 3 5 7 6 3 1 4 :

“ M A N J E S S E B O Y H E C T O R S N I T C H I N O N M E I A I N T

T R I P P I N O N B E E F B U T T E L L I N A W H O L E N O T H E R

B A L L G A M E D A T I D O N T P L A Y ”

• A t 2 : 2 7 p

. m

. t h e U s e r s e n t a m e s s a g e t o U s e r # 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 6 : “ S H I T

O N S T I L L O N A M O N I T O R S O I A I N T B E E N N O W H E R E

I N A B O U T A Y E A R N O W A N D M Y B D A Y W A S O

T H A 1 2 T H U F O G O T B O U T M E ” 4 7

• A t 2 : 3 5 p

. m

. t h e U s e r s e n t a m e s s a g e t o U s e r # 7 3 5 7 6 3 1 4 : “ Y E A

Y U T H I N K I M O N D I S M O N I T O R M Y N I G G A S H I T

H A T I N A S S N I G G A S W N N A T A L K A L L D A T G A N G S T A

S H I T A N D W E N T H E G O I N G E T T U F F D E M N I G G A S

D O N ’ T R U N S H I T B U T T H E Y M O U T H ”

• A t 2 : 4 2 p

. m

. t h e U s e r s e n t a m e s s a g e t o t h e s a m e U s e r : “ Y E A

appellant and two friends “throwing gan g s i gn s ” i n front of what appea rs to be a club with the

caption, “str8 outta ja il and n da club.”

4 7

A pen packe t introduced at the punishment phase of trial confirms that the appellant’ s date

of birth is September 12th.Tienda — 23

S H I T E V E R Y O N E W U Z B U S T I N A N D T H E Y O N L Y T O L D

O N M E ”

• A t 2 : 5 0 p

. m

. t h e U s e r s e n t a n o t h e r m e s s a g e t o t h e s a m e U s e r :

“ Y E A S H I T U K N O I K E E P G A N G S T E V E N A F T E R

H E C T O R S H O T A T N E W A T R U M O R S W E S T I L L D I D N T

T E L L A N D I K N O J E S S E T O L D H I M W E W A S T H E R E C U Z

W E S A W T H E M A T T H A C L U B B U T I T S C O O I F I G E T

O F F M A N @ ! ! ! ! ! ” 4 8

T h i s c o m b i n a t i o n o f f

a c t s

— ( 1 ) t h e n u m e r o u s p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t w i t h h i s

u n i q u e a r m

, b o d y

, a n d n e c k t a t t o o s

, a s w e l l a s h i s d i s t i n c t i v e e y e g l a s s e s a n d e a r r i n g ; ( 2 ) t h e

r e f e r e n c e t o D a v i d V a l a d e z ’ s d e a t h a n d t h e m u s i c f r o m h i s f u n e r a l ; ( 3 ) t h e r e f

e r e n c e s t o t h e

a p p e l l a n t ’ s “ T a n g o B l a s t ” g a n g ; a n d ( 4 ) t h e m e s s a g e s r e f e r r i n g t o ( a ) a s h o o t i n g a t “ R u m o r s ”

w i t h “ N u

- N u

, ” ( b ) H e c t o r a s a “ s n i t c h

, ” a n d ( c ) t h e u s e r h a v i n g b e e n o n a m o n i t o r f o r a y e a r 4 9

( c o u p l e d w i t h t h e p h o t o g r a p h o f t h e a p p e l l a n t l o u n g i n g i n a c h a i r d i s p l a y i n g a n a n k l e

m o n i t o r ) s e n t f

r o m t h e M y S p a c e p a g e s o f “ r o n M r

. T ” o r “ M R

. S M I L E Y F A C E ” w h o s e

e m a i l a d d r e s s i s “ r o n n i e t i e n d a j r @ ”

— i s s u f

f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f

i n d i n g b y a r a t i o n a l j u r y t h a t

t h e M y S p a c e p a g e s t h a t t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e w e r e c r e a t e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t

. T h i s

i s a m p l e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e

— t a k e n a s a w h o l e w i t h a l l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l

, p a r t i c u l a r

d e t a i l s c o n s i d e r e d i n c o m b i n a t i o n

— t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e M y S p a c e p a g e s b e l o n g e d

t o t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d t h a t h e c r e a t e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d t h e m

.

4 8

The prosecutor transl at ed t h i s messag e as: “Ye ah, shi t, y ou know I keep it g ang ster, even

afte r Hec tor shot at Nu-Nu at Rumors, we still didn’t tell. And I know J esse told him we was there

, ‘ca use we saw them a

t the club, but it’s cool if Ig et off, ma n.”

4 9

A witness by the name of Hec tor Gonzalez did indeed testify ag ainst the appe llant at trial.Tienda — 24

I t i s

, o f c o u r s e

, w i t h i n t h e r e a l m o f p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s t h e v i c t i m o f

s o m e e l a b o r a t e a n d o n g o i n g c o n s p i r a c y

. C o n c e i v a b l y s o m e u n k n o w n m a l e f a c t o r s s o m e h o w

s t o l e t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s n u m e r o u s s e l f

- p o r t r a i t p h o t o g r a p h s

, c o n c o c t e d b o a s t f u l m e s s a g e s a b o u t

D a v i d V a l a d e z ’ s m u r d e r a n d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h a t s h o o t i n g

, w a s a w a r e o f t h e m u s i c

p l a y e d a t V a l a d e z ’ s f

u n e r a l

, k n e w w h e n t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s r e l e a s e d o n p r e t r i a l b o n d w i t h

e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g a n d r e f e r r e d t o t h a t y e a r

- l o n g e v e n t a l o n g w i t h s t e a l i n g t h e p h o t o g r a p h

o f t h e g r i n n i n g a p p e l l a n t l o u n g i n g i n h i s c h a i r w h i l e w e a r i n g h i s a n k l e m o n i t o r

. B u t t h a t i s

a n a l t e r n a t e s c e n a r i o w h o s e l i k e l i h o o d a n d w e i g h t t h e j u r y w a s e n t i t l e d t o a s s e s s o n c e t h e

S t a t e h a d p r o d u c e d a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t i t w a s t h e a p p e l l a n t

, n o t s o m e u n i d e n t i f i e d

c o n s p i r a t o r s o r f

r a u d a r t i s t s

, w h o c r e a t e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d t h e s e M y S p a c e p a g e s

.

T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s i n t h i s c a s e r e l i e d u p o n t h e o p i n i o n o f a n i n t e r m e d i a t e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s i n M a r y l a n d i n a c a s e p r e s e n t i n g s i m i l a r f a c t s

. B u t t h a t i n t e r m e d i a t e a p p e l l a t e 5 0

c o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n h a s s i n c e b e e n r e v e r s e d o n d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

. I n G r i f f i n v

. S t a t e

, 5 1 5 2

i n v o l v i n g a p r o s e c u t i o n f o r m u r d e r a n d a s s a u l t

, t h e S t a t e p r o f f e r e d a p r i n t o u t o f p o r t i o n s o f

a M y S p a c e p r o f

i l e p u r p o r t i n g t o b e t h a t o f G r i f f i n ’ s g i r l f r i e n d

. A l t h o u g h t h e g i r l f r i e n d 5 3

5 0

Tienda

, supra , at *5 (c iting Griffin v. State , 192 Md. App. 518, 995 A.2d 791 (2010) ).

5 1

Griffin v. State , 419 Md. 343, 19 A.3d 415 (2011).

5 2

419 Md. 343, 19 A.3d 415 (2011).

5 3

Id ., Md. at 348, A.3d at 418.Tienda — 25

t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l

, t h e S t a t e d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o a u t h e n t i c a t e t h e M y S p a c e p r o f i l e a s g e n u i n e l y

h e r s t h r o u g h h e r t e s t i m o n y

. I n s t e a d

, t h e l e a d i n v e s t i g a t o r i n t h e c a s e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e 5 4

M y S p a c e p r o f

i l e i d e n t i f

i e d i t s e l f a s b e i n g t h a t o f “ S i s t a s o u l j a h

, ” h a v i n g t h e s a m e d a t e o f

b i r t h a s t h e g i r l f

r i e n d

. A l s o p o s t e d o n t h e p r o f i l e w a s a p h o t o g r a p h i c i m a g e o f t h e 5 5

d e f e n d a n t w i t h h i s g i r l f

r i e n d

. T h e S t a t e a r g u e d t h a t t h e d a t e o f b i r t h a n d t h e p h o t o g r a p h

5 6

p r o v i d e d s u f

f i c i e n t i n d i c i a o f a u t h e n t i c a t i o n t o j u s t i f y a d m i s s i o n o f o t h e r p o s t i n g s o n t h e

M y S p a c e p r o f

i l e t h a t a m o u n t e d t o v e i l e d t h r e a t s a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e ’ s p r i n c i p a l w i t n e s s a g a i n s t

t h e d e f e n d a n t

. T h e M a r y l a n d C o u r t o f A p p e a l s d i s a g r e e d

. “ A n y o n e c a n c r e a t e a

5 7 5 8

M y S p a c e p r o f

i l e a t n o c o s t

, ” t h e C o u r t o b s e r v e d

, a n d “ a n y o n e c a n c r e a t e a f i c t i t i o u s a c c o u n t

a n d m a s q u e r a d e u n d e r a n o t h e r p e r s o n ’ s n a m e o r c a n g a i n a c c e s s t o a n o t h e r ’ s a c c o u n t b y

o b t a i n i n g t h e u s e r ’ s u s e r n a m e a n d p a s s w o r d [

. ] ” R e l y i n g f o r “ a s s i s t a n c e ” i n i t s a n a l y s i s 5 9

u p o n L o r r a i n e

, t h e M a r y l a n d C o u r t o f A p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d :

T h e p o t e n t i a l f

o r a b u s e a n d m a n i p u l a t i o n o f a s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g s i t e b y

s o m e o n e o t h e r t h a n i t s p u r p o r t e d c r e a t o r a n d / o r u s e r l e a d s t o o u r c o n c l u s i o n

5 4

Id

.

5 5

Id

.

5 6

Id

.

5 7

Id

.

5 8

Id ., Md. at 357, A.3d at 423.

5 9

Id ., Md. at 351 & 352, A.3d at 420 & 421.Tienda — 26

t h a t a p r i n t o u t o f a n i m a g e f r o m s u c h a s i t e r e q u i r e s a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f

a u t h e n t i c a t i o n t h a n m e r e l y i d e n t i f y i n g t h e d a t e o f b i r t h o f t h e c r e a t o r a n d h e r

v i s a g e i n a p h o t o g r a p h o n t h e s i t e i n o r d e r t o r e f l e c t t h a t [ t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s

g i r l f r i e n d ] w a s i t s c r e a t o r a n d t h e a u t h o r o f [ t h e t h r e a t e n i n g l a n g u a g e p o s t e d

t h e r e o n ]

. 6 0

A c c o r d i n g l y

, t h e M a r y l a n d C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n

t o f i n d t h a t t h e S t a t e h a d l a i d a n a d e q u a t e p r i m a f a c i e f o u n d a t i o n f

o r a d m i s s i o n o f t h e

M y S p a c e p r o f

i l e p o s t i n g s

. 6 1

A l o n g t h e w a y

, t h e M a r y l a n d C o u r t o f A p p e a l s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t s u c h p o s t i n g s m a y

r e a d i l y b e a u t h e n t i c a t e d

, e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f y i n g t h r e e n o n

- e x c l u s i v e m e t h o d s

. F i r s t

, t h e 6 2

p r o p o n e n t c o u l d p r e s e n t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a w i t n e s s w i t h k n o w l e d g e ; o r

, i n o t h e r w o r d s

, “ a s k

t h e p u r p o r t e d c r e a t o r i f s h e i n d e e d c r e a t e d t h e p r o f i l e a n d a l s o i f s h e a d d e d t h e p o s t i n g i n

q u e s t i o n

. ” T h a t m a y n o t b e p o s s i b l e w h e r e

, a s h e r e

, t h e S t a t e o f f e r s t h e e v i d e n c e t o b e 6 3

a u t h e n t i c a t e d a n d t h e p u r p o r t e d a u t h o r i s t h e d e f e n d a n t

. S e c o n d

, t h e p r o p o n e n t c o u l d o f f e r

t h e r e s u l t s o f a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n e t h i s t o r y o r h a r d d r i v e o f t h e p e r s o n w h o i s

c l a i m e d t o h a v e c r e a t e d t h e p r o f i l e i n q u e s t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h a t p e r s o n ’ s p e r s o n a l

6 0

Id ., Md. at 357-58, A.3d a t 424.

6 1

Id ., Md. at 357, A.3d at 423.

6 2

Id ., Md. at 363-65, A.3d a t 427-28.

6 3

Id. Md. at 363, A.3d at 427.Tienda — 27

c o m p u t e r w a s u s e d t o o r i g i n a t e t h e e v i d e n c e a t i s s u e

. O r

, t h i r d

, t h e p r o p o n e n t c o u l d 6 4

p r o d u c e i n f

o r m a t i o n t h a t w o u l d l i n k t h e p r o f i l e t o t h e a l l e g e d p e r s o n f r o m t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

e m p l o y e e o f t h e s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g w e b s i t e c o r p o r a t i o n

. T h e S t a t e o f M a r y l a n d f a i l e d t o 6 5

t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f

a n y o f t h e s e m e t h o d s i n G r i

f f i n

. A n d i t i s t r u e t h a t t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s h a s

l i k e w i s e f

a i l e d t o u t i l i z e a n y o f t h e m i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s c a s e

. N e v e r t h e l e s s

, a s w e h a v e 6 6

e x p l a i n e d

, t h e r e a r e f

a r m o r e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l i n d i c i a o f a u t h e n t i c i t y i n t h i s c a s e t h a n i n

G r i f f i n

— e n o u g h

, w e t h i n k

, t o s u p p o r t a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e t h a t w o u l d j u s t i f y a d m i t t i n g t h e

e v i d e n c e a n d s u b m i t t i n g t h e u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n o f a u t h e n t i c i t y t o t h e j u r y

. W e h o l d t h a t t h e

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s d i d n o t e r r t o c o n c l u d e t h a t i t w a s w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d i s c r e t i o n t o a d m i t

t h e M y S p a c e p o s t i n g s

, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e p e r s u a s i v e a u t h o r i t y i t r e l i e d u p o n f o r t h a t

p r o p o s i t i o n h a s s i n c e b e e n o v e r r u l e d

.

C O N C L U S I O N

B e c a u s e t h e r e w a s s u f

f i c i e n t c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e

e x h i b i t s w e r e w h a t t h e y p u r p o r t e d t o b e

— M y S p a c e p a g e s t h e c o n t e n t s o f w h i c h t h e a p p e l l a n t

w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f

o r

— w e a f

f i r m t h e t r i a l j u d g e a n d t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s w h i c h h a d b o t h

c o n c l u d e d t h e s a m e

.

6 4

Id.

6 5

Id. , Md. at 364, A.3d at 428.

6 6

The State never clea

rly laid out fo r t h e j u ry how a My Space acc ount is cre ated and

maintained, never d ef

i n ed the terms unique to My Space technolog y

, and never explained how an

acc ount holder ac cesse s and uses his ac count in the re g ular c ourse of My Space a ctivity

.Tienda — 28

D E L I V E R E D : F e b r u a r y 8

, 2 0 1 2

P U B L I S H