Opinion ID: 4176095
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of letters written by petitioner

Text: In her final assignment of error, petitioner argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting four handwritten letters that petitioner purportedly wrote to Mr. 7 Shoemaker while she was at the Potomac Highlands Regional Jail awaiting trial. Petitioner contends that the State failed to properly authenticate the letters as being written by petitioner because Mr. Shoemaker testified that he recognized petitioner’s handwriting, but that had “just seen her sign her name and stuff like that.” In the letters, which petitioner asked Mr. Shoemaker to give to his son (the co-defendant), petitioner (1) describes her and the co-defendant’s involvement in the crimes; (2) tells the co­ defendant what to say to law enforcement; (3) details she had an argument with the victim that escalated into a physical fight with both of them wielding knives; and (4) admits she alone killed the victim and that the co-defendant was not present at the time. Mr. Shoemaker did not give the letters to the co-defendant; instead, he had his girlfriend turn the letters over to law enforcement. The State introduced the letters through the testimony of Mr. Shoemaker, over petitioner’s objection. We have held as follows: In an analysis under W.Va.R.Evid. 901 a trial judge must find that the party offering the evidence has made a prima facie showing that there is sufficient evidence “to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” In other words, the trial judge is required only to find that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification before the evidence is admitted. The trier of fact determines whether the evidence is credible. Furthermore, a trial judge’s ruling on authenticity will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Syl. Pt. 1, in part, State v. Jenkins, 195 W. Va. 620, 466 S.E.2d 471 (1995). Additionally, When the contents of a letter are of such nature that the letter could not have passed between any parties except the purported writer and the person to whom it was delivered, the letter is admissible in evidence under the rule that the authenticity or the genuineness of a letter must be established by proof of the handwriting of the author or by other proof of its genuineness. Syl. Pt. 6, State v. Huffman, 141 W. Va. 55, 87 S.E.2d 541 (1955), overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. R.L. v. Bedell, 192 W. Va. 435, 452 S.E.2d 893 (1994). In the present case, Mr. Shoemaker identified petitioner’s handwriting as he was familiar with it; identified petitioner’s signature; identified that the letters were dated in October of 2013, when petitioner was incarcerated at the Potomac Highlands Regional Jail; identified that the letters were sent from Potomac Highlands Regional Jail; and identified that the letters were addressed to his mother’s residence where he was living at the time. This testimony provided sufficient evidence to authenticate the letters in question. However, even if the testimony had not provided sufficient evidence, pursuant to Jenkins, the jury remained empowered to reject this testimony if it did not find it credible. Accordingly, we reject petitioner’s final assignment of error. 8