State of New Jersey v. Terri Hannah
151 A.3d 99
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2016Background
- On Sept. 22, 2012 a fight at a community-center party left Cindy Edwards with facial injuries requiring stitches; defendant Terri Hannah was accused of striking Edwards with a high-heeled shoe.
- Edwards and her boyfriend Arnett Blake testified they saw Hannah strike Edwards and later saw Hannah without shoes; Edwards and Hannah exchanged messages on Twitter after the incident.
- Edwards captured a December 28, 2012 tweet allegedly from Hannah reading, in part, "shoe to ya face bitch," and the State offered that screenshot (Exhibit S-4) at trial.
- Hannah denied authoring the tweet and testified anyone could fabricate a Twitter account; she argued authentication required more rigorous proof.
- Municipal Court and, on de novo review, the Law Division admitted the tweet under N.J.R.E. 901, credited State witnesses, found Hannah not credible, and convicted her of simple assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tweet was properly authenticated for admission | Tweet was properly authenticated by Edwards' testimony, tweet content, profile photo and handle, and the reply-nature of the post | Twitter posts require heightened authentication (per Griffin) and only Twitter can conclusively verify origin; tweet could be forged | Court applied N.J.R.E. 901; found circumstantial indicia (handle, photo, content, reply context, testimony) sufficient for prima facie authentication and admitted tweet |
| Whether New Jersey should adopt Griffin's heightened authentication test | Existing N.J. authentication rules (N.J.R.E. 901) adequately address social-media evidence | Griffin requires greater scrutiny and suggested specific methods (ask author, search originating computer, obtain website records) | Court rejected Griffin's special rule; held traditional N.J.R.E. 901 modes are adequate and Griffin's three-method approach is not exclusive |
| Whether violation of sequestration order occurred and prejudiced defendant | (State) No violation or prejudice shown; witnesses remaining did not influence testimony | Witnesses (Edwards) remained after testifying and may have coached Blake; sequestration was violated | No plain error; allowing witnesses to remain without objection did not undermine sequestration purpose and record lacked evidence of coaching |
| Whether municipal court drew improper adverse inference for failure to call other witnesses | (State) Law Division conducted de novo review and did not rely on any adverse inference | Municipal judge suggested an inference from missing corroborating witnesses; this harmed Hannah | Law Division declined to rely on any adverse inference and independently found sufficient evidence to convict; appellate review limited to Law Division's action |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. State, 19 A.3d 415 (Md. 2010) (advocated greater scrutiny and suggested three methods to authenticate social-network printouts)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (rejected Griffin's strict approach; allowed circumstantial indicia to show prima facie authenticity)
- State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368 (2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
- Konop v. Rosen, 425 N.J. Super. 391 (App. Div. 2012) (discusses authentication as a screening process and admission of writings with prima facie proof)