Nathaniel Norris v. State
06-16-00150-CR
Tex. App.Apr 27, 2017Background
- Nathaniel Norris was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child; jury recommended 5 years, and the trial court suspended the sentence and placed Norris on 5 years community supervision.
- The State sought to admit Facebook Messenger messages the victim received on her phone that appeared to be from Norris (each message showed Norris’s Facebook profile picture) as evidence corroborating her account.
- The victim testified she communicated with Norris on Facebook Messenger, identified the exchange as occurring on October 19, 2015, and was positive Norris authored the replies; she also testified the messages’ substance matched in-person statements Norris made to her.
- Norris objected that the Facebook messages were not properly authenticated, arguing they could have come from anyone and lacked dates.
- The trial court admitted the messages after a hearing; Norris also challenged assessment of court costs across multiple consolidated convictions.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the messages and whether the court-costs issue remained live.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Norris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of Facebook Messenger texts | Victim’s testimony, message content, profile picture, and corroboration with in-person statements suffice for preliminary authentication allowing jury resolution | Messages could be sent by anyone; lacked dates and therefore not properly authenticated | Trial court did not abuse discretion; messages preliminarily authenticated and admissible |
| Assessment of court costs after consolidated trials | Court costs were assessed in each case initially | Norris argued costs were improperly assessed across consolidated cases | Moot: trial court later entered judgments nunc pro tunc removing costs in all but one case; issue overruled as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. State, 459 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (text-message authentication standard; preliminary showing suffices for jury to decide authenticity)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial court’s Rule 104 gate-keeping requires only facts supporting reasonable jury determination of authenticity)
- Johnson v. State, 432 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (discussion of mootness where trial court corrects judgment by nunc pro tunc)