PA Superior Court: Circumstantial Evidence May Authenticate Text Messages

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Orr, holding that the Commonwealth properly authenticated text messages that were used against Orr in his murder trial with circumstantial evidence. This decision provides helpful insight on what a court may require before admitting text messages at trial.

Commonwealth v. Orr

In 2015, a police officer received a call for a suspicious vehicle in York County, Pennsylvania. When the officer located the vehicle, he noticed an unresponsive female in the driver’s seat of a running Honda Odyssey Minivan. This woman had sustained multiple gunshot wounds and she did not have a pulse when the officer checked it. The officer determined that she was dead. An autopsy was later performed that showed that the decedent had suffered two gunshot wounds to the head, four gunshot wounds to the torso, two gunshot wounds to the right arm, and two gunshot wounds to her left arm.  

The decedent was subsequently identified and her mother was contacted. The mother spoke to the police and informed them that the decedent and the defendant had a child together. She also told the police that she received a letter from the defendant stating that the decedent “didn’t die from jealousy, anger, or aggression, and she didn’t suffer.” In that same letter, the defendant wrote that he was “not guilty of her death.” 

The police executed a search warrant of the defendant’s home in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. While searching his home, they found a backpack with a gun and live ammunition. It was later determined that this gun was the gun used to kill the decedent. Further, the police analyzed the decedent’s cellphone. They found the defendant’s DNA on the phone. Additionally, they reviewed her phone and found text messages that appeared to have been sent from the decedent from the defendant. 

In reviewing those messages, the police found several that discussed their ongoing custody dispute over their children. Further, the police found specific texts that implicated him in the decedent’s murder including messages that said things like: “I’m coming through your mom’s door cops called or not your goal for me to go to jail might happen;” “someone in your family are going to [feel] these bullets though and if I was you I’d move your van off of Market Street;” “I don’t give a fuck about no charge. If you don’t care about a bullet in ya’ll asses, so it is what it is. Over my seed, blood will spill.” The police were able to confirm that the defendant owned a cell phone. 

After the police completed their investigation, the defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with murder. During trial, the Commonwealth sought to introduce the above text messages into evidence. Defense counsel objected to the text messages on authentication grounds. The trial court overruled the objections and admitted the text messages into evidence.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder. The trial court imposed the mandatory life sentence. The defendant then filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the only issue that was raised was whether the trial court improperly admitted the text messages into evidence.  

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Rule 901 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence governs the issue of authentication. The proponent of the evidence must introduce sufficient evidence that the matter is what it purports to be. Testimony of a witness with personal knowledge of the matter is enough to satisfy Rule 901. However, and importantly, the Superior Court also stated that Rule 901 may be satisfied via circumstantial evidence too. 

Text messages are documents that are subject to the requirements of Rule 901, too. In its opinion, the Superior Court acknowledged the difficulty in establishing authorship of text messages because more than one individual can access an electronic device with or without permission. As such, appellate courts require that “authentication of electronic communications, like documents, requires more than mere confirmation that the number or address belonged to a particular person.” The Superior Court went on to conclude that text messages can be authenticated by using circumstantial evidence. 

In this case, the Superior Court acknowledged that there was no direct testimony that showed the defendant sent the texts in question. However, the Superior Court found that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant sent them. It was clear that the defendant owned a cell phone. Further, the fact that there were other messages that referenced their ongoing custody dispute was additional evidence that the defendant authored the texts. As such, the Superior Court found that there was sufficient evidence to authenticate the text messages. Therefore, the Court denied the appeal.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help. 

Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.