IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA20-45

Filed: 1 December 2020

Wake County No. 17 CRS 213180; 19 CRS 000071

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

DERICK CLEMONS, Defendant.

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 28 August 2019 by Judge Paul C. 

Ridgeway in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 May

2020.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Bethany A.

Burgon, for the State.

Benjamin J. Kull for defendant-appellant.

MURPHY, Judge.

Before screenshots of an online written statement on social media can be 

admitted into evidence they must be authenticated as both a photograph and a 

written statement. To authenticate evidence in this manner, there must be 

circumstantial or direct evidence sufficient to conclude a screenshot accurately 

represents the content on the website it is claimed to come from and to conclude the 

written statement was made by who is claimed to have written it. Here, screenshots 

of comments on Facebook posts, made by an account not in Defendant’s name, were 
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

properly authenticated because there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show 

the screenshots of the Facebook comments in fact depicted the Facebook posts and 

comments and to show the Facebook comments were made by Defendant. We hold 

there was no error.

BACKGROUND

On 9 June 2017, Inez DeJesus renewed her domestic violence protective order 

(“DVPO”) prohibiting contact of any kind by Defendant, Derick Clemons, in 

anticipation of his release from prison. Later in June 2017, Defendant was released 

from prison and picked up by his and DeJesus’s daughter. Shortly after, on 5 July 

2017, DeJesus started receiving phone calls from a restricted number, which later 

were determined to all come from the same number. She received these calls every 

day and often multiple times in a single day from 5 July 2017 to 11 July 2017, 

sometimes also receiving voicemails left in Defendant’s voice and referring to events 

she and Defendant had engaged in together. During this time period, there were 

comments made on DeJesus’s Facebook posts, from her daughter’s account, that 

DeJesus didn’t think her daughter would have posted (“Facebook comments”). 

On 11 July 2017, DeJesus reported these events to police and showed police 

officers the Facebook comments and the phone calls from a restricted number, and 

played the voicemails left by the number. Based on these communications, police 

officers obtained a warrant for Defendant’s arrest for violation of the DVPO, and he 
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

was subsequently arrested. Following his arrest, DeJesus did not receive any more 

calls from restricted numbers, or Facebook comments from her daughter’s account 

seeming to come from someone else. 

Pre-trial, Defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude testimony 

regarding the Facebook comments based on a lack of connection between Defendant 

and his daughter’s Facebook account. The trial court denied this motion based on the 

State’s assertion DeJesus would testify the posts came from Defendant, not their 

daughter.1 At trial, the Facebook comments were admitted and considered 

authenticated based on the testimony of DeJesus. Prior to the admission of the 

screenshots of the Facebook comments, DeJesus testified as follows:

[THE STATE:] Any idea who met him when he was 

released?

[DEJESUS:] Yes, I do know who.

[THE STATE:] Who is that?

[DEJESUS:] Our daughter, Ashley Clemons.

[THE STATE:] What is your relationship like with Ashley?

[DEJESUS:] As of right now, it’s getting better.

[THE STATE:] How has it been prior to now?

[DEJESUS:] It was very rocky.

 

1 In part, the State contended police reports would show Defendant made these comments, not 

the daughter, however these reports were not introduced into evidence and are not a part of the Record.
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

[THE STATE:] Why was it a rocky relationship with 

Ashley?

[DEJESUS:] Because, you know, she was our first 

daughter, his first daughter. So she has a real good 

connection with her dad.

[THE STATE:] After you became aware that [D]efendant 

was released, did you have any -- in those initial days, did 

you receive any sort of strange contact?

[DEJESUS:] Not right -- right before he got out – not

during -- he got -- not -- I have, but not as soon as he got

out.

[THE STATE:] Okay. About how long after he got out did 

you start receiving the contact?

[DEJESUS:] Maybe a week or two.

[THE STATE:] Okay. And did you receive phone calls on 

your cell phone from a private or blocked number?

[DEJESUS:] Yes, I have.

[THE STATE:] When did you start receiving those calls?

[DEJESUS:] It was July 5th.

[THE STATE:] Of what year?

[DEJESUS:] Of 2018 -- 2017.

[THE STATE:] The phone number that you had back in 

2017, how long had you had that phone number?

[DEJESUS:] Since 2011.

[THE STATE:] So in 2011, you changed your cell phone 

number?
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

[DEJESUS:] I did.

. . .

[THE STATE:] Prior to July 5th of 2017, had you been 

receiving calls on your cell phone from either a blocked or 

private number?

[DEJESUS:] No, I haven’t.

[THE STATE:] How many calls, Inez, would you estimate 

you received from a private or blocked number starting on

July 5th and continuing thereafter?

[DEJESUS:] I don’t know -- I can’t remember how many, 

but it was -- it was plenty enough for me to call.

[THE STATE:] Did you answer any of those calls?

[DEJESUS:] I did not. If I don’t know the person, I won’t.

If it was important, they will leave a message.

[THE STATE:] When you initially started getting those 

unknown or private calls on your cell phone, were voice 

messages left?

[DEJESUS:] There was.

[THE STATE:] Okay. Did that occur right away or did that 

occur some time later?

[DEJESUS:] Maybe like two days after.

[THE STATE:] Okay. About how long were you receiving 

those calls and voice messages from the blocked or private 

number?

[DEJESUS:] Up until July 11th.
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

[THE STATE:] So from July 15th -- I'm sorry, July 5 to July 

11, 2017?

[DEJESUS:] Correct.

[THE STATE:] Do you recall what, if anything, was left on 

any of those voice messages?

[DEJESUS:] To stand out, we went on vacation to Miami 

and we went to Bahamas on a cruise ship.

[THE STATE:] And when you say “we went,” who is “we”?

[DEJESUS:] Me and him and two females.

[THE STATE:] Okay. And when did you go on that 

vacation to Miami and the Bahamas?

[DEJESUS:] I don’t know the exact year, but it was maybe 

like April sometime.

[THE STATE:] Okay. That was before 2011?

[DEJESUS:] Right. It was sometime in 2000s, when we 

were in a marriage together.

[THE STATE:] Okay. Is it fair to say it was a long time 

before 2017?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] When you say that one of those messages 

said “Miami, Bahamas,” was that the extent of the 

message?

[DEJESUS:] That’s all that was said.

[THE STATE:] Did you recognize the voice –

[DEJESUS:] I did.
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

[THE STATE:] -- in that voice mail?

[DEJESUS:] I did.

[THE STATE:] And whose voice was that?

[DEJESUS:] Mr. Clemons.

[THE STATE:] That’s the defendant in this case?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] Why is that particular event, the Miami, 

Bahamas, of significance to you?

[DEJESUS:] Because he is the only guy that I went on a 

trip with.

[THE STATE:] Was this something that would have been 

common knowledge to people?

[DEJESUS:] No, not -- if I told them.

[THE STATE:] Do you recall any of the other voice 

messages that were left?

[DEJESUS:] There was one I really -- I forgot what it said,

but it was something like –

[DEFENDANT:] Oh, Your Honor, I'm sorry. We would 

move to strike the evidence as far as the phone calls based 

on the arguments that we previously made. We’d move to 

strike -- object to the questions and move to strike the

testimony based on arguments we previously made to the

Court.

THE COURT: Right. That objection is overruled. You may 

answer the question.
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

[THE STATE:] To go back, Inez, do you recall any other 

voice messages that were left for you from an either blocked 

or private number?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] Okay. And do you recall the voice on that 

voice message?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] Whose voice was that?

[DEJESUS:] Mr. Clemons.

[THE STATE:] Okay. And do you recall the content of that 

voice message?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] What was contained in that voice message?

[DEJESUS:] It was something like he’s going to come get 

me or get something -- I don’t really clearly remember.

[THE STATE:] Did you perceive it as threatening?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] Did you receive any other voice messages 

that you can recall?

[DEJESUS:] I did, but it wasn’t like -- it was no voice after. 

It was just like him just being on the phone breathing.

[THE STATE:] You could hear breathing on the phone?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

[THE STATE:] What times of day were these calls and 

voice messages coming in to you?

[DEJESUS:] I can recall one was like in the morning, one 

was in the afternoon and one was in the evening time.

[THE STATE:] So all throughout the day?

[DEJESUS:] Yeah.

[THE STATE:] During this same time period, did you start 

to receive -- do you have a Facebook page?

[DEJESUS:] I do have a Facebook.

[THE STATE:] And is that page something that has your 

name on it that identifies you?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] Did you also start to receive comments left 

on posts that you made on Facebook?

[DEJESUS:] I did.

MS. FETTER: Your Honor, may I approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

(State’s Exhibits 4 - 6 marked for identification.)

[THE STATE:] Inez, I’m showing you what’s been 

previously marked for identification purposes as State’s 

Exhibit 4, 5 and 6. Will you take a look at those please and 

let me know if you recognize them.

[DEJESUS:] Yep. Yes, I do.

[THE STATE:] What are State’s Exhibit 4, 5 and 6?
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 10 -

[DEJESUS:] They’re my posts on -- Facebook posts.

[THE STATE:] And what about State’s Exhibit 4, 5 and 6 

– did you take screenshots?

[DEJESUS:] I did.

[THE STATE:] Okay. Is that what these are?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] And why did you specifically screenshot 

State’s Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 from your Facebook page?

[DEFENDANT:] Your Honor, again, we would object to the 

questions and move to strike the testimony based on

arguments previously made in court.

THE COURT: The objection’s overruled.

[DEJESUS:] Because I know my daughter wouldn’t write 

none of this stuff on my page. She never posts on my 

Facebook.

[THE STATE:] And we’ll talk about that in one second, 

Inez. These are messages that –

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] -- you received on Facebook?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] Your Honor, at this time the State moves 

Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 into evidence.

[DEFENDANT:] Objection on the grounds previously

stated.
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 11 -

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Four, Five and 

Six are admitted.

(State’s Exhibits 4 - 6 admitted into evidence.) 

On appeal, Defendant contends the admission of the testimony and exhibits 

related to the Facebook comments was improper because the Facebook comments 

were not properly authenticated as being made by Defendant. Additionally, on 

appeal the parties dispute whether abuse of discretion or de novo review is 

appropriate for authentication issues. 

ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Defendant contends we review de novo a decision regarding authentication;

whereas, the State contends we review for an abuse of discretion. “Under a de novo

review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment 

for that of the lower tribunal.” State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 632-633, 669 S.E.2d 

290, 294 (2008) (citations and internal marks omitted). “Abuse of discretion results 

where the court’s ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that 

it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 

279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988). We hold the appropriate standard of review for 

authentication of evidence is de novo.2

 

2 While not making any determination as to the prejudicial effect of such an abuse of discretion, 

we note if we were to accept the State’s standard of review argument, we would find the trial court’s 
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 12 -

At first glance, “[t]he cases from the Court of Appeals are in conflict regarding 

whether an abuse of discretion or de novo standard of review is appropriate in the 

context of authentication of documentary evidence.” In re Lucks, 369 N.C. 222, 231, 

794 S.E.2d 501, 508 (2016) (Hudson, J., concurring). However, upon a closer look, it 

appears our rule is to review trial court decisions regarding authentication de novo. 

The two cases cited by the State here and Justice Hudson in In re Lucks to support 

the idea that abuse of discretion review has been conducted on authentication issues 

are not convincing. See In re Lucks, 369 N.C. at 231, 794 S.E.2d at 508 (Hudson, J., 

concurring) (citing In re Foreclosure by Goddard & Peterson, PLLC, 248 N.C. App. 

190, 200, 789 S.E.2d 835, 842 (2016); Brown v. City of Winston-Salem, 176 N.C. App. 

497, 505, 626 S.E.2d 747, 753 (2006)).

In the first case, In re Foreclosure by Goddard & Peterson, PLLC, we treated 

the issue of authentication as abandoned due to the appellant’s failure to cite legal 

authority to support the claim as required by N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6). In re 

Foreclosure by Goddard & Peterson, PLLC, 248 N.C. App. at 200, 789 S.E.2d at 843. 

This case does not establish or discuss a standard of review for a trial court’s 

determination regarding the authentication of evidence. 

 

decision to be an abuse of discretion based on its misapprehension of law when it said, “I think that it 

goes to the weight rather than the admissibility. It is a question for the jury to decide who authored 

those posts.” On the contrary, there must be sufficient evidence to conclude Defendant authored the 

posts before the jury could review the evidence. See State v. Nunez, 204 N.C. App. 164, 170, 693 S.E.2d 

223, 227 (2010) (“When a trial [court] acts under a misapprehension of the law, this constitutes an 

abuse of discretion.”).
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 13 -

In the second case, Brown v. City of Winston-Salem, we reviewed whether 

spreadsheets intended to be introduced into evidence were properly authenticated. 

Brown, 176 N.C. App. at 505, 626 S.E.2d at 753. In Brown, we determined the 

spreadsheets were not properly authenticated and held “the trial court’s ruling that 

petitioners’ spreadsheets could be admitted only for the limited purpose [the parties 

had stipulated to] was proper, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 

506, 626 S.E.2d at 753. Although we determined the evidence was not properly 

authenticated, we did not address the authentication determination; instead, we 

concluded an abuse of discretion did not occur in the decision to admit the evidence 

for the limited purpose stipulated to by the parties. At no point did we set out a 

standard of review for authentication specifically. We simply stated “[o]n appeal, the 

standard of review of a trial court’s decision to exclude or admit evidence is that of an 

abuse of discretion.” Brown, 176 N.C. App. at 505, 626 S.E.2d at 753 (2006) (citing 

Williams v. Bell, 167 N.C. App. 674, 678, 606 S.E.2d 436, 439 (2005)). Additionally, 

Williams only referred to decisions to exclude evidence and ultimately concluded the 

excluded evidence there was irrelevant under Rule 401. Williams, 167 N.C. App. at

678, 606 S.E.2d at 439. At no point does Williams discuss authentication. Id. 

Conversely, the cases in which we review authentication explicitly state de 

novo is the appropriate standard of review. We have repeatedly stated “[a] trial 

court’s determination as to whether a document has been sufficiently authenticated 
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 14 -

is reviewed de novo on appeal as a question of law.” See State v. DeJesus, 265 N.C. 

App. 279, 288, 827 S.E.2d 744, 751, disc. review denied, 372 N.C. 707, 830 S.E.2d 837 

(2019); State v. Allen, 258 N.C. App. 285, 288, 812 S.E.2d 192, 195, disc. review denied,

371 N.C. 449, 817 S.E.2d 202 (2018); State v. Ford, 245 N.C. App. 510, 517, 782 S.E.2d 

98, 104 (2016); State v. Hicks, 243 N.C. App. 628, 638, 777 S.E.2d 341, 348 (2015);

State v. Watlington, 234 N.C. App. 580, 590, 759 S.E.2d 116, 124 (2014) (applying this 

standard of review to text messages); State v. Crawley, 217 N.C. App. 509, 515, 719 

S.E.2d 632, 637 (2011). Crawley was the first case to state this rule in these terms 

and its holding can be traced back to State v. LeDuc. 

In LeDuc, our Supreme Court addressed the requirements of authentication in 

the context of comparing handwritings, stating: 

Before handwritings can be submitted to the jury for its 

comparison, however, the trial [court] must satisfy [itself]

that one of the handwritings is genuine. The statute so 

provides. We hold, in addition, that the trial [court] must 

also be satisfied that there is enough similarity between 

the genuine handwriting and the disputed handwriting, 

that the jury could reasonably infer that the disputed 

handwriting is also genuine. Both of these preliminary 

determinations by the trial [court] are questions of law fully 

reviewable on appeal.

State v. LeDuc, 306 N.C. 62, 73-74, 291 S.E.2d 607, 614 (1982) (emphasis added), 

overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Childress, 321 N.C. 226, 362 S.E.2d 263 

(1987); see also State v. McCoy, 234 N.C. App. 268, 269-71, 759 S.E.2d 330, 332-33 

(2014); State v. Owen, 130 N.C. App. 505, 509-10, 503 S.E.2d 426, 429-30 (1998). This 
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 15 -

reasoning is equally applicable to authentication situations outside of handwriting. 

See, e.g., Watlington, 234 N.C. App. at 591, 759 S.E.2d at 124 (discussing de novo 

review when the authentication of text messages was at issue).

Furthermore, in State v. Snead, our Supreme Court, without explicitly stating 

it, conducted de novo review of whether the authentication of a video was 

appropriate.3 State v. Snead, 368 N.C. 811, 815-16, 783 S.E.2d 733, 737 (2016). In 

reversing our decision as to authentication, our Supreme Court stated:

Given that [the] defendant freely admitted that he is one of 

the two people seen in the video stealing shirts and that he 

in fact stole the shirts, he offered the trial court no reason 

to doubt the reliability or accuracy of the footage contained 

in the video. Regardless, [the witness’s] testimony was 

sufficient to authenticate the video under Rule 901. [The 

witness] established that the recording process was 

reliable by testifying that he was familiar with how Belk’s 

video surveillance system worked, that the recording 

equipment was “industry standard,” that the equipment 

was “in working order” on 1 February 2013, and that the 

videos produced by the surveillance system contain 

safeguards to prevent tampering. Moreover, [the witness]

established that the video introduced at trial was the same 

video produced by the recording process by stating that the 

State’s exhibit at trial contained exactly the same video 

that he saw on the digital video recorder. Because 

defendant made no argument that the video had been 

altered, the State was not required to offer further evidence 

of chain of custody. [The witness’s] testimony, therefore, 

 

3 We also note in State v. Snead, we held “[a] trial court’s determination as to whether a

videotape has been properly authenticated is reviewed de novo on appeal.” State v. Snead, 239 N.C. 

App. 439, 443, 768 S.E.2d 344, 347 (2015), rev’d in part on other grounds, 368 N.C. 811, 783 S.E.2d 

733 (2016) (citing Crawley, 217 N.C. App. at 515, 719 S.E.2d at 637).
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 16 -

satisfied Rule 901, and the trial court did not err in 

admitting the video into evidence.

Id. Although not explicitly stated, our Supreme Court analyzed this issue de novo as 

it “considered the matter anew” and at no point did our Supreme Court reference 

language related to the abuse of discretion standard in determining this issue. 

Based on Snead, LeDuc, and our extensive caselaw explicitly applying de novo 

review on issues of authentication, we conduct de novo review of whether the evidence 

at issue here was properly authenticated.

B. Authentication

Defendant contends the screenshots of the Facebook comments were written 

statements that must have been authenticated as statements; whereas, the State 

contends these screenshots were photographs that only needed to be authenticated 

as photographs. We hold these Facebook comments must have been authenticated 

as both photographs and written statements.

Rule of Evidence 901(a) reads “[t]he requirement of authentication or 

identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence 

sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent 

claims.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (2019). The State used the screenshots of the 

Facebook comments to show Defendant violated the DVPO by communicating with 

DeJesus. In order for the screenshots of the Facebook comments to support finding 

Defendant contacted DeJesus, the screenshots must have accurately reflected 
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 17 -

DeJesus’s Facebook page. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (2019). Therefore, the 

screenshots must have been authenticated as photographs. However, the screenshots 

of the Facebook comments are also statements—the State wanted the jury to use the 

screenshots to conclude Defendant communicated with DeJesus in violation of the 

DVPO through the Facebook comments. These are not being introduced simply to 

show DeJesus’s Facebook posts had comments from her daughter’s account because 

this would not show any communication by Defendant in violation of the DVPO. The 

evidence must show Defendant was responsible for the Facebook comments in order 

to show he communicated with DeJesus in violation of the DVPO. In light of this 

purpose, the Facebook comments also needed to be authenticated by evidence 

sufficient to support finding they were communications actually made by Defendant. 

N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (2019).

“In order for a photograph to be introduced, it must first be properly 

authenticated by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is in fact what it 

purports to be.” State v. Lee, 335 N.C. 244, 270, 439 S.E.2d 547, 560 (1994). Here, 

the screenshots were properly authenticated as required for photographs. On direct 

examination of DeJesus, the following exchange occurred:

[THE STATE:] During this same time period, did you start 

to receive -- do you have a Facebook page?

[DEJESUS:] I do have a Facebook.
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 18 -

[THE STATE:] And is that page something that has your 

name on it that identifies you?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] Did you also start to receive comments left 

on posts that you made on Facebook?

[DEJESUS:] I did.

[THE STATE:] Your Honor, may I approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

(State's Exhibits 4 - 6 marked for identification.)

[THE STATE:] Inez, I’m showing you what’s been 

previously marked for identification purposes as State’s 

Exhibit 4, 5 and 6. Will you take a look at those please and 

let me know if you recognize them.

[DEJESUS:] Yep. Yes, I do.

[THE STATE:] What are State’s Exhibit 4, 5 and 6?

[DEJESUS:] They’re my posts on -- Facebook posts.

[THE STATE:] And what about State’s Exhibit 4, 5 and 6 

– did you take screenshots?

[DEJESUS:] I did.

[THE STATE:] Okay. Is that what these are?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] And why did you specifically screenshot 

State’s Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 from your Facebook page?
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 19 -

[DEFENDANT:] Your Honor, again, we would object to the

questions and move to strike the testimony based on

arguments previously made in court.

THE COURT: The objection’s overruled.

[DEJESUS:] Because I know my daughter wouldn’t write 

none of this stuff on my page. She never posts on my 

Facebook.

[THE STATE:] And we’ll talk about that in one second, 

Inez. These are messages that –

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] -- you received on Facebook?

[DEJESUS:] Yes.

[THE STATE:] Your Honor, at this time the State moves 

Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 into evidence.

[DEFENDANT:] Objection on the grounds previously

stated.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Four, Five and 

Six are admitted.

As Defendant concedes, the above inquiry was sufficient to authenticate the 

screenshots of the Facebook comments as photographs. DeJesus testified she took 

the screenshots of the comments on her Facebook posts, which showed the 

screenshots were in fact what they purported to be. Since the screenshots of the 

Facebook comments were properly authenticated as photographs, we next determine 

if they were properly authenticated as written statements.
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 20 -

“Pursuant to Rule 901 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, every writing 

sought to be admitted must first be properly authenticated.” Allen, 258 N.C. App. at 

288, 812 S.E.2d at 195 (quoting State v. Ferguson, 145 N.C. App. 302, 312, 549 S.E.2d 

889, 896 (2001)). Our Supreme Court has stated “[i]t was not error for the trial court 

to admit the [evidence] if it could reasonably determine that there was sufficient 

evidence to support a finding that ‘the matter in question is what its proponent 

claims.’” State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18, 34, 431 S.E.2d 755, 764 (1993) (quoting 

N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 901). According to Rule 901(b)(4), Rule 901(a) can be satisfied 

by “[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive 

characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 

901(b)(4) (2019). Furthermore, we have acknowledged “the authorship and 

genuineness of letters, typewritten or other, may be proved by circumstantial 

evidence[.]” State v. Young, 186 N.C. App. 343, 354, 651 S.E.2d 576, 583 (2007)

(quoting State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28, 164 S.E. 737, 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649, 

77 L. Ed. 561 (1932)).

Applying Rule 901(b)(4) here, the Facebook comments were properly 

authenticated prior to admission as the distinctive characteristics of the post in 

conjunction with the circumstances are sufficient to conclude Defendant wrote the 

comments. As stated above, this evidence was introduced to show Defendant made a

written statement to DeJesus in violation of the DVPO. Before State’s Exhibits 4, 5, 
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 21 -

and 6 were admitted, circumstantial evidence was presented that was sufficient to

conclude Defendant had access to his daughter’s Facebook account allowing him to 

make the Facebook comments. This circumstantial evidence includes: Defendant and 

DeJesus’s daughter picked up Defendant from jail upon his release; their daughter

has a strong relationship with Defendant and a “very rocky” one with DeJesus;

DeJesus began to receive the Facebook comments a week or two after Defendant was 

released; and DeJesus took the screenshots of the Facebook comments because “[she 

knew her] daughter wouldn’t write none of this stuff on [her Facebook] page. [Her 

daughter] never posts on [her] Facebook.” The Facebook comments made from the 

daughter’s account, which were unlike her, in conjunction with Defendant’s recent 

interaction and close relationship with his daughter is circumstantial evidence

sufficient to conclude Defendant had access to her Facebook account. 

In conjunction with Defendant’s potential access to his daughter’s Facebook 

account, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to conclude the person who 

posted these comments from the daughter’s Facebook account was Defendant. This 

circumstantial evidence includes: Defendant had ignored a DVPO before by calling 

DeJesus and sending her letters from jail in 2013 and 20154; a week or two after 

 

4 This evidence was limited at trial in the following instruction: “Evidence has been received 

tending to show that despite an existing domestic violence protective order, [D]efendant attempted to 

make telephone contact and communicate by letter with Ms. DeJesus in 2013 and 2015. This evidence 

was received solely for the purpose of showing: The identity of the person who committed the crime 

charged in this case, if it was committed; That [D]efendant had a motive for the commission of the 
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 22 -

Defendant’s release, on 5 July 2017 until 11 July 2017, DeJesus received phone calls 

and voicemails from a blocked number to the same phone number DeJesus had used

since 2011; these voicemails had Defendant’s voice and one referred to an event that 

took place with Defendant and DeJesus, one was just breathing, and one was 

threatening; DeJesus had a Facebook page in her name and in the same week-long 

period she also started to receive comments on her posts, which were shown in State’s

Exhibits 4, 5, and 6; and these were screenshots she took of her posts because “[she 

knew her] daughter wouldn’t write none of this stuff on [her] page. [Her daughter] 

never posts on [her] Facebook.” The above circumstantial evidence, in conjunction 

with the circumstantial evidence of Defendant’s access to the daughter’s Facebook 

account, was sufficient to find Defendant posted the Facebook comments because 

Defendant had access to the Facebook account to make the comments, and the 

Facebook comments were not made by the daughter but were made in the same 

timeframe as the phone calls Defendant made to DeJesus.

According to Young, the circumstantial evidence here is appropriate to 

authenticate the Facebook comments as there was circumstantial evidence that was 

sufficient to find the Facebook comments were written by Defendant. Additionally, 

 

crime charged in this case; That [D]efendant had knowledge, which is a necessary element of the crime 

charged in this case; The absence of a mistake. If you believe this evidence, you may consider it, but 

only for the limited purpose for which it was received. You may not consider it for any other purpose.” 

Our use of the prior violation of a DVPO here is permissible since it is used to show knowledge of the 

phone number.
STATE V. CLEMONS

Opinion of the Court

- 23 -

[o]nce evidence from which the jury could find that the 

writing is genuine has been introduced, the writing 

becomes admissible. Upon the admission of the writing 

into evidence, it is solely for the jury to determine the 

credibility of the evidence both with regard to the 

authenticity of the writing and the credibility of the writing 

itself.

Young, 186 N.C. App. at 354, 651 S.E.2d at 583 (quoting Milner Hotels, Inc. v. 

Mecklenburg Hotel, Inc., 42 N.C. App. 179, 180-81, 256 S.E.2d 310, 311 (1979)). The 

evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s authentication and admission of

the Facebook comments, and upon admission it was for the jury to decide the 

authenticity and credibility of the writing. Id.

CONCLUSION

The trial court reasonably determined there was sufficient evidence to 

conclude the Facebook comments were made by Defendant. It was proper for the jury 

to determine whether the evidence supported a violation of the DVPO.

NO ERROR.

Judges BRYANT and BERGER concur in result only.