Alejandro Leal Pena v. State, 467 S.W.3d 71

Alejandro Leal Peña was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child; at punishment the jury assessed life as a habitual offender.
At punishment the State introduced testimony from a minor witness, "Tanya," about text messages and photographs she exchanged with someone who identified himself as Alejandro Peña.
Tanya testified she received sexually explicit photos and messages from the person she knew as Peña, identified a photograph of her phone showing one such picture, and stated the picture fairly and accurately depicted what she received.
Defense objected to admission of the photograph (State’s Exhibit #3) on grounds of insufficient authentication under Texas Rule of Evidence 901; the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the exhibit.
On appeal Peña argued the State failed to authenticate the messages/picture as authored or sent by him rather than merely believed to be by him.
The Fourth Court of Appeals reviewed the authentication ruling for abuse of discretion and affirmed admission, concluding the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find the exhibit authentic.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the photograph of Tanya’s phone (text/photo) was properly authenticated under Tex. R. Evid. 901	State: Tanya’s testimony that the exhibit fairly and accurately depicted the messages she exchanged with someone who identified as Alejandro Peña was sufficient for prima facie authentication; authenticity disputes go to the jury	Peña: The State failed to show the messages were actually authored or sent by him rather than merely believed by Tanya to be from him; identification was insufficient without more linking the device or account to Peña	The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion; Tanya’s direct and circumstantial testimony sufficed to admit the exhibit for the jury to weigh authenticity

Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication standard for electronic communications and threshold for jury submission)
Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for preliminary rulings)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standard for appellate review of trial-court discretion)
Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reasonable juror standard for authentication)
Manuel v. State, 357 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2011) (circumstantial evidence can suffice to authenticate electronic communications)
Kelley v. State, 22 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000) (witness identification of a photograph as fair and accurate supports admissibility)
Davis v. State, 687 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985) (presence at photo-taking not required to authenticate photograph)