Phillip Beaty v. State
03-16-00856-CR
Tex. App.Nov 15, 2017Background
- Phillip Beaty was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 20 years.
- Incident: a shooting after a fight outside the Texas Club on Nov. 1, 2015; witnesses described a bald Hispanic man in a striped shirt with a "Philly" tattoo on the back of his head.
- State introduced surveillance stills (Exhibit 27) and four Facebook-derived exhibits (Exs. 23–26) consisting of screenshots from the defendant’s brother’s Facebook showing photos of Beaty and a later post referencing "Lil Philly"/"Philly."
- Detective Tronco testified he located the brother’s Facebook, took screenshots, uploaded them to the police system, and that the screenshots were exactly as he found them.
- Defense objected that the Facebook exhibits lacked proper authentication and required testimony from Facebook; trial court overruled and admitted the exhibits. Beaty appealed on that sole ground.
Issues
| Issue | Beaty's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of Facebook images | Exhibits 23–26 were not properly authenticated; Facebook employee testimony required to verify account, dates, and origin | Detective Tronco’s testimony, the screenshots’ internal details (timestamps, captions, profile pic), and matching tattoos/clothing sufficiently linked images to Beaty for jury presentation | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the exhibits; reasonable juror could find them authentic |
| Harm from possible erroneous admission | Admission of Facebook exhibits prejudiced verdict because some eyewitnesses were weak | Even without Facebook exhibits, strong independent evidence (surveillance video, in-court IDs, tattoos, eyewitness testimony) made any error harmless | Any error would be non-reversible; did not affect Beaty’s substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication of social-media content may be shown by circumstantial, distinctive details; prima facie showing suffices for jury to decide ultimate authenticity)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court’s authentication role and standard for admissibility under Rule 104)
- Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (trial court need only find facts supporting a reasonable juror could authenticate evidence)
- Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standard for assessing whether nonconstitutional evidentiary error affected substantial rights)