Opinion ID: 2354297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dumpster documents.

Text: Detective Larry Congelton of the Oldham County Police Department testified that he searched a dumpster located in the parking lot of the Crestwood Recruiting Station where Appellant had parked his automobile on June 29, 1999, before proceeding on foot to the Porter residence. The search produced a number of documents that appeared to belong to Appellant, including various military records containing Appellant's name and social security number, as well as two original documents purportedly prepared by Appellant, himself. These latter two documents were admitted into evidence over Appellant's objection that they were not properly authenticated as having been authored by him. The first document, typewritten except for a signature purporting to be that of Appellant and Appellant's handwritten social security number, reads as follows: I, Miguel Angel Soto, being of mind sound and body, hereby writes [sic] my last will and testimony. To my oldest daughter, Kristie Denae Soto, I leave all my personal belongings. For all three of my daughters, Kristie Denae Soto, Kaylynn Michelle Soto, and Brianna Nicole Porter, I leave any benefits acquired from the military. /s/ Miguel Angel Soto XXXXXXXXX The second document, typewritten and unsigned, was partially redacted to delete a reference to a prior criminal offense for which Appellant was convicted in 1996 in Jeffersonville, Clark County, Indiana. The document begins as follows: Hello everyone. My name is Miguel Angel Soto, also known as Mickey to my friends or SOTOPOP to all my internet friends. This letter is a final goodbye to all that believed in my dreams of getting back into the lives of my children. The author then expresses frustration over not having custody of the children and blames unidentified ex-wives for that fact. The document continues: I had a list of all the people that I planned on destroying, but I knew that I would only be able to Take [sic] care of one person, so I drew a name out of the hat, you all know who won. The following names are the lucky non winners, I hope they live their lives better, knowing that they have a second chance: The document then lists the lucky non winners as Renae Harrison, Richard Paul Harrison, and Linda Kay Harrison, Armott Porter and Edna Porter, two members of the Clark County, Indiana, Sheriff's Department, and a former Clark County, Indiana, prosecutor. The document concludes: I do love my daughters, Kristie, Kaylynn and Brianna, but if I cannot be part of their lives, then I don't want to be living on this planet. God knows what I've been through, so that is why I am not scared. Goodbye all and I will see you all in a better place. Of course, conspicuously absent from the list of lucky non winners was the name of Armotta Porter, damning evidence of Appellant's premeditated intent to kill her. The 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. KRE 901(a). Appellant asserts that the provisions of KRE 901(b), titled Illustrations, required the Commonwealth to produce evidence that Appellant's signature on the last will was genuine. He theorizes that KRE 901(b)(2), which allows a party to authenticate a document by non-expert opinion as to the genuineness of the handwriting, and KRE 901(b)(3), which allows authentication through [c]omparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated, are the only methods by which these documents can be authenticated. He is mistaken. While KRE 901(b)(2) and (3) indeed describe methods by which a document may be authenticated, those methods are not exclusive. The specific illustrations [of KRE 901(b)] are not to be viewed as all-inclusive. Lawson, supra , at § 7.05. In the absence of direct evidence as to a writing's authenticity, a document may be authenticated by a wide variety of means, including circumstantial evidence. See Fanelli v. Commonwealth, Ky., 418 S.W.2d 740, 744-45 (1967) (circumstantial evidence sufficient to authenticate checks allegedly signed by defendants, even absent testimony from handwriting experts or persons familiar with defendants' signatures); Lawson, supra , at § 7.05 ([T]here is no end to the ways in which the circumstances surrounding a writing might tend to show authenticity.). In addition, distinctive characteristics of the writing, in conjunction with the circumstances, may assist in its authentication. KRE 901(b)(4) (Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances); Lawson, supra , at § 7.05; see also United States v. Wilson, 532 F.2d 641, 644 (8th Cir.1976) (Under [FRE 901(b)(4)], the contents of a writing may be used to aid in determining the identity of the declarant.). Both documents were found at a location where Appellant was known to have been just prior to the murders and were found along with other military documents containing Appellant's name, date of birth, and social security number. Both documents identified Appellant's children by name. Both evidenced a belief in the writer's pending demise, a fact corresponding to Appellant's having discarded most of his personal effects because he would not need them where he was going. The last will contained Appellant's purported signature and handwritten social security number, and made reference to his military service. The final goodbye described events that occurred in Appellant's life, including his lack of visitation with his children and his 1996 conviction in Jeffersonville, Indiana. The lucky non winner's list included persons connected to Appellant's past, i.e., an ex-wife, former in-laws, arresting officers, and a former prosecutor. Specifically, it included the two persons Appellant was accused of murdering. This circumstantial evidence sufficed to identify Appellant as the author of both documents.