Hassan Christopher Atkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 800 S.E.2d 827

Atkins was charged with multiple burglaries and grand larcenies after break-ins at three nearby businesses where laptops, money counters, cash, and a BMW were stolen.\
Shortly after the burglaries, police stopped a vehicle near the scene; Atkins was a passenger. Officers found masks, gloves, a drill, spark plugs, a stolen camera, checks made out to a victim company, and a backpack with school papers bearing Atkins’s name.\
Officers recovered a passcode-protected cell phone Atkins identified as his and for which he provided the passcode. A money counter stolen from Quality Data Systems was found in Atkins’s bedroom.\
A forensic analyst examined Atkins’s phone and found: (1) a Twitter post (tweet) containing a photo of the recovered money counter and text advertising it for sale; and (2) text messages from Aug. 24–27 advertising money counters and a “mack book pro” with the stolen laptop’s serial number. The analyst verified the tweet was sent from Atkins’s phone.\
Atkins objected at trial that the tweet and texts were not adequately authenticated—that the Commonwealth had not proved he authored them. The trial court admitted the messages; the jury convicted him. Atkins appealed, arguing insufficient foundation for admission.\

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commonwealth sufficiently authenticated texts and a tweet recovered from Atkins’s phone so they could be admitted as Atkins’s out-of-court statements (party admissions)	The messages were sent from Atkins’s passcode-protected phone, which he identified and unlocked; the social media account used an email with his name; the tweet photo matched a stolen item found in his bedroom — these facts prove he authored the messages.	The Commonwealth failed to prove Atkins was the actual sender/author of the tweet and texts, so the messages lacked the necessary foundation and were inadmissible hearsay.	The Court held the Commonwealth met the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for authentication: the phone belonged to Atkins, he provided the passcode, the account used his name, and the tweet photo matched recovered property. Admission was not an abuse of discretion; convictions affirmed.

Adjei v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 727 (discretion in admissibility of evidence)
Beck v. Commonwealth, 253 Va. 373 (trial court discretion on relevance and admissibility)
Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814 (party admissions and authentication standard)
Walters v. Littleton, 223 Va. 446 (authentication requirement for writings)
Armes v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 189 (completeness of identification goes to weight, not admissibility)