Opinion ID: 1598918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Foundation and Authenticity

Text: ¶ 63. The State argues that there were four witnesses who testified as to the authenticity of the lettersWillie Agnew, a male trustee at the jail, testified that he received letters from Burns that were to be delivered to Contina Kohlheim; Officer Bell, the jail administrator, testified that he took known writing samples from Burns; Ted Burkes, a document examiner with the State Crime Lab, testified that the letters written to Kohlheim were probably prepared by Burns and that a comparison of the signatures on the letters and the known sample revealed a strong probability that they were written by the same person; Contina Kohlheim testified that she received letters she believed to be written by Burns while they were both incarcerated in the Tupelo City Jail; and Kenneth Gill, a fingerprint examiner with the Mississippi Crime Lab, testified that Burns' fingerprints were on the letters received from Kohlheim purportedly written by Burns. ¶ 64. This Court has held that [r]elevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and this Court will reverse only where that discretion has been abused. Hentz v. State, 542 So.2d 914, 917 (Miss.1989) ( citing Burt v. State, 493 So.2d 1325, 1326 (Miss.1986); Carter v. State, 310 So.2d 271, 273 (Miss.1975); and M.R.E. 103(a)). In Hentz, this Court further said that the admissibility of the letters only becomes a concern once they have been authenticated. Id. A person's handwriting may be authenticated by a handwriting expert or by a lay witness with a prior familiarity with that person's handwriting. Id. ( citing Henry v. State, 484 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Miss.1986); and M.R.E. 901(b)(2)). Rule 901 reads in its pertinent part as follows: Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication Or Identification (a) General Provision. 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. (b) Illustration. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: (1) Testimony of Witness With Knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. (2) Non-expert Opinion on Handwriting. Non-expert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation. (3) Comparison by Trier or Expert Witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.       (10) Other Methods. Any method of authentication or identification provided by the Mississippi Supreme Court or by the Constitution of Mississippi. ¶ 65. In the case sub judice, the State was in full compliance with the requirements set out by this Court in Hentz. Ted Burkes, the State's handwriting expert, properly authenticated the letters by comparing them to the known writing exemplar obtained from Burns by Officer Bell, the jail administrator. Furthermore, Kenneth Gill, a fingerprint expert with the Mississippi Crime Lab testified that Burns' fingerprints were found on the letters thus linking Burns to the letters. The only way Burns' prints could have been found on the letters is for him to have handled them at some point in time. The chain of custody of the letters was clearly established, as will be discussed next, such that the only time Burns could have left fingerprints on the letters was before Willie Agnew, the male trustee, ever received them from him. Burns had no opportunity to handle the letters after they were received by Agnew.