State v. Thompson
2010 ND 10, 2010 WL 93233, 777 N.W.2d 617 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Electronic communications such as text messages do not require a special or heightened standard for authentication; they may be authenticated by circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be, under the existing framework of Rule of Evidence 901.
Facts:
- Jennifer Sandvig Thompson and her husband (the complainant) were married with three children and were in the process of moving residences.
- On the morning of October 31, 2008, Thompson sent multiple text messages to her husband's phone demanding money, leading to an argument where she refused to exit his vehicle.
- Throughout the day, Thompson continued to send text messages, some of which were profane and threatening, demanding money.
- After trick-or-treating with the family that evening, Thompson went to a bar and then returned home around 11 p.m., where another argument over money began.
- During the argument, Thompson punched her husband several times in the face, causing bodily injury.
- When law enforcement arrived, Thompson initially admitted to hitting her husband, but later claimed he had pushed her first and that she acted in self-defense.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Jennifer Sandvig Thompson with simple assault upon a family or household member in the district court (trial court).
- Thompson filed a pre-trial motion in limine to exclude any testimony or evidence related to text messages, arguing they lacked foundation and were hearsay.
- The district court denied Thompson's motion.
- During the trial, the court admitted testimony about the text messages and a picture of one specific message over Thompson's objections.
- A jury found Thompson guilty as charged, and the district court entered a criminal judgment.
- Thompson (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing the district court erred in admitting the text message evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to authenticate a text message for admission into evidence under Rule of Evidence 901?
Opinions:
Majority - Sandstrom, Justice
Yes. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to authenticate a text message for admission into evidence under Rule of Evidence 901. The court reasoned that there is no justification for creating unique, heightened rules for the admissibility of electronic communications because the same uncertainties, such as forgery or theft, exist with traditional written documents. The standard for authentication under Rule 901(a) is met by 'evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.' In this case, circumstantial evidence—including the complainant’s testimony recognizing Thompson’s phone number, the contact name in his phone, and her distinctive signature on the messages, coupled with the context of the day's events—was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find that Thompson was the author of the text messages. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.
Analysis:
This case establishes the controlling standard for authenticating text messages and other electronic communications in North Dakota, aligning the state with the prevailing federal and state-level approach. By rejecting the need for special rules for digital evidence, the court affirmed the flexibility of existing evidence rules to adapt to new technologies. This decision provides a practical framework for litigants, clarifying that circumstantial evidence, such as distinctive characteristics or testimony from a recipient, is sufficient to establish a foundation for admissibility, leaving the ultimate determination of credibility to the jury. It lowers the barrier for introducing increasingly common forms of digital evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings.
