Opinion ID: 4209433
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Messages are “Originals”

Text: [¶33] Each of the messages that the victims received is an “original” as set forth in M.R. Evid. 1001(d) in two respects. First, each message was a “counterpart intended to have the same effect by” the author, Legassie. M.R. Evid. 1001(d). Second, because each message constituted “electronically stored information,” the rule treats “any printout” of such data as an “original,” so long as the content of the printout “accurately reflects the information.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Bank of Am. v. Barr, 2010 ME 124, ¶ 21 & n.4, 9 A.3d 816 (concluding that electronically-stored records created by a bank and 20 printed out by a third-party contractor met the definition of an “original” pursuant to Rule 1001).10 [¶34] Depending on the content sought to be proved and the nature of the writing, multiple “originals” can be at issue in a single case. See LeBlanc, 2006 ME 106, ¶ 9, 907 A.2d 802 (concluding that both an “original” credit card bill and annotated copies of the bill constituted an “original” because both were sought to be proved). The fact that Legassie created the messages does not mean that the messages created and perhaps stored in Legassie’s Facebook account are the only “originals.” As stated in Maine’s leading treatise on evidence, “[t]he nature of an original in the sense used in the best evidence rule may be very different from the ordinary lay usage. The layperson calls the paper first produced in chronological succession the original and later reproductions of the paper copies or duplicates. Under the rule, the chronology is not decisive. An original is the document the contents of which are to be proved.” Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 1001.1 at 559 (emphasis added). [¶35] The focus of the State’s proof, as elicited from the victims’ testimony, was what Legassie communicated through written text in the 10 Accordingly, because Legassie does not dispute the accuracy of the printout of messages that Victim A received from Legassie that were admitted as Exhibit 1, the printout was an “original” for the purposes of the rule. 21 messages that the victims received through Facebook. Although it is accurate to state that the messages originated from Legassie’s Facebook account, once the messages were sent, two “originals” were generated simultaneously—one retrievable from the sender’s Facebook account and one retrievable from the recipient’s account.11 At the time that the messages were sent and received, they would have been electronically stored and accessible on any device with an internet connection with access to either Legassie’s or the victims’ Facebook accounts. [¶36] An “original writing” is simply a shorthand term for the best evidence to prove the contents of a writing, when, as here, the contents are being challenged or questioned. At trial, the State offered the testimony of the victims’ recollection of the content of the messages that the victims received to establish that Legassie “intentionally or knowingly employ[ed], solicit[ed], entice[d], persuade[d], use[d] or compel[led]” them “to engage in sexually explicit conduct.” 17-A M.R.S. § 282(1)(A). The victims’ testimony, recounted 11 A number of courts have concluded that an electronic communication received from an opposing party is not merely a copy or duplicate, but rather constitutes an “original” unto itself. See Greco v. Velvet Cactus, LLC, No. 13-3514, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87778, at  (E.D. La. June 27, 2014) (treating email printouts that reproduced text messages exchanged between the parties as an “original” for purposes of the rule); Espiritu, 176 P.3d at 892 (holding that text messages received by a victim that were sent by the defendant constituted an “original”); Laughner, 769 N.E.2d at 1159 (concluding that internet chat room messages received by an undercover police officer posing as a child, which were copied into a word processing document and printed, constituted “original” writings). 22 in their recollections nearly two years after Legassie sent and the victims received and read the messages, was clearly not the best evidence to prove their content. [¶37] Because Legassie’s messages constituted writings and the State sought to prove their content, the State was required to introduce the original messages if available, or, in the alternative, make a showing that the messages could not be obtained before offering secondary evidence in the form of witness testimony. See M.R. Evid. 1004.