254 (2008) (unpublished), is of some help in that regard. The court of appeals’ unpublished opinion in State v. For this reason, while Taylor is instructive in terms of authenticating print outs of phone messages, the case fails to provide a complete road-map for the introduction of such evidence in the typical criminal case when the relevancy of the writing hinges on it having been written by the defendant. The court did not consider it necessary to show that the defendant was the person with whom the victim was corresponding. The Taylor court further noted that the text messages, which identified the victim’s car and included his first name, contained sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that the victim was the person who sent and received them. The court deemed this evidence sufficient to authenticate the print out of phone company records as text messages sent to and from the victim’s assigned number. In Taylor, witnesses from the phone company that provided the victim’s service testified about how such messages were sent and how these particular messages were stored and retrieved. § 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (“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.”). 395, 413-14 (2006), upheld the admission of text messages sent to and from the victim’s phone as properly authenticated. Several years ago, the court of appeals in State v. It is somewhat surprising given the prevalence of electronic evidence that there are so few North Carolina appellate opinions addressing its admissibility. And prosecutors arguably benefit the most from the treasure-trove of electronic proof, which the State often uncovers in the form of incriminating instant messages, emails, and texts. Criminal defense attorneys can cross-examine witnesses about their wall posts and tweets. Family law attorneys seeking to prove infidelity can mine the timelines of Facebook. But if modern technology and its trail of connections present problems for law enforcement, they create a field of dreams for litigators.

These days conspiracies can be hatched and connections made without anyone leaving the comfort of his den and, correspondingly, without being observed by the police. That movement could easily be tracked by the police. He explained that before advent of the internet, criminals had to leave their homes to hook up with other criminals. I recently heard a police detective say that the internet was the worst thing that ever happened to law enforcement.

Decipher text message for court