Butler, Billy Dean
459 S.W.3d 595
Tex. Crim. App.2015Background
- Butler was convicted of aggravated kidnapping after his girlfriend, Ashley Salas, testified about a violent episode and produced photographs of threatening text messages she received the week before trial.
- State’s Exhibit 57 consisted of photographs of a text-message exchange showing number 361-215-3899 sending threats; Salas testified the number was Butler’s and that he had called her during the exchange.
- At trial Butler objected to admission of the text messages for lack of proper authentication; the trial court admitted them over objection.
- On direct appeal the Corpus Christi court of appeals reversed, holding Salas’s testimony was insufficient under this Court’s decision in Tienda v. State to authenticate the texts.
- The State sought discretionary review; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to address application of Tienda and reversed the court of appeals, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the texts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the text messages were properly authenticated under Texas Rule of Evidence 901 | State: Salas’s testimony that the number was Butler’s, the content/context of messages, and that Butler called during the exchange sufficiently linked Butler to the texts | Butler: Salas’s identification of the phone number alone (and her impeached credibility) was insufficient to prove authorship; more direct proof was required | The Court reversed the court of appeals: the combined circumstantial evidence (association of number, contemporaneous call, and message content/context) met the liberal Rule 901 threshold and authentication was for the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (caution that a cell‑phone number alone may be insufficient to authenticate texts)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (describing the pervasive, personal nature of cell phones)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (exception where record so contradicts testimony that no rational factfinder could believe witness)
- United States v. Thompson, 449 F.3d 267 (1st Cir. 2006) (example of authenticating correspondence by return address and corroborating circumstances)