admitted at trial (e-mails and Facebook posts). The messages presented contained identifying defendant’s information as the sender and the testimony victim’s that she received the messages and believed they came from defendant. MRE 901(a) provides a lower threshold for admissibility than defendant requests: requirement of authentication as a condition “The precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent at Anderson, claims.” *7. Also, MRE 903 makes it unnecessary to present the testimony of a subscribing witness to authenticate the evidence. Id. 2014 Judges Stephens, Saad and Criminal (Armed Admissibility. Text messages from the victim to the People v Salters, Mich App LEXIS 625 Boonstra Robbery, Assault with cousin were admitted into evidence. The defendant’s (Apr 8, 2014) Intent to Murder, Felony defendant, on appeal, argued that the trial court erred Firearm, etc.) in admitting the content of the text messages, which denied him his right of confrontation. However, the Court, in its discussion of that constitutional issue, address the text messages. didn’t 2014 Judges Gleicher, Saad and Criminal (Armed Probity. Facebook research performed by the victim, People v Smith, Mich App LEXIS 599 Fort Hood (Dissent by Judge Robbery, Home Invasion, immediately after he was robbed, was used by the (Apr 1, 2014) Gleicher.) Felony Firearm, etc.) victim to identify the name of the man who committed the robbery. There were no issues on appeal regarding the Facebook research; however, there were other witness credibility issues and ineffective assistance of counsel issues. 2014 Judges Whitbeck, Hoekstra Criminal (Sex Offenders Probity. The Court held there was no prosecutorial People v Jones, Mich App LEXIS 242 and Gleicher Registration Act, misconduct and the prosecutor did not reference facts (Feb 11, 2014) Criminal Sexual not in evidence in her argument when she said a Conduct, Home witness lied that she saw the complainant come out of Invasion) home a month prior to the assault, based defendant’s
admitted at trial (e-mails and Facebook posts). The messages presented contained defendant’s identifying information as the sender and the victim’s testimony that she received the messages and believed they came from defendant. MRE 901(a) provides a lower threshold for admissibility than defendant requests: “The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims.” Anderson, at *7. Also, MRE 903 makes it unnecessary to present the testimony of a subscribing witness to authenticate the evidence. Id. People v Salters, 2014 Mich App LEXIS 625 (Apr 8, 2014) Judges Stephens, Saad and Boonstra Criminal (Armed Robbery, Assault with Intent to Murder, Felony Firearm, etc.) Admissibility. Text messages from the victim to the defendant’s cousin were admitted into evidence. The defendant, on appeal, argued that the trial court erred in admitting the content of the text messages, which denied him his right of confrontation. However, the Court, in its discussion of that constitutional issue, didn’t address the text messages. People v Smith, 2014 Mich App LEXIS 599 (Apr 1, 2014) Judges Gleicher, Saad and Fort Hood (Dissent by Judge Gleicher.) Criminal (Armed Robbery, Home Invasion, Felony Firearm, etc.) Probity. Facebook research performed by the victim, immediately after he was robbed, was used by the victim to identify the name of the man who committed the robbery. There were no issues on appeal regarding the Facebook research; however, there were other witness credibility issues and ineffective assistance of counsel issues. People v Jones, 2014 Mich App LEXIS 242 (Feb 11, 2014) Judges Whitbeck, Hoekstra and Gleicher Criminal (Sex Offenders Registration Act, Criminal Sexual Conduct, Home Invasion) Probity. The Court held there was no prosecutorial misconduct and the prosecutor did not reference facts not in evidence in her argument when she said a witness lied that she saw the complainant come out of defendant’s home a month prior to the assault, based