State Of Washington v. Kyle Lipinski, 47725-4

Kyle Lipinski was charged with two felony counts for violating a June 5, 2014 no-contact order: allegedly appearing at the victim Boyes’s residence on December 1, 2014, and sending texts to Boyes on December 6, 2014.
Boyes identified the December 1 visitor as Lipinski; she received text messages from an unknown number but testified she recognized the sender by distinctive content and terms of endearment Lipinski used.
On the morning of trial the State requested Lipinski be restrained with a locking leg brace; deputies testified it prevents running or kicking but allows normal walking and reduces needed courtroom staff.
The trial court ordered the leg brace restraint, found the courtroom layout and defendant’s attributes justified it, and took steps to conceal the brace from the jury.
Over Lipinski’s ER 901(a) objection the court admitted the December 6 text messages after Boyes testified to unique, corroborating content linking the texts to Lipinski; Lipinski was convicted on both counts and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ordering a leg‑brace restraint during trial was an abuse of discretion	State: restraint necessary for courtroom safety, fewer deputies required with brace	Lipinski: no history of aggressive trial behavior; restraint unnecessary and prejudicial	No abuse of discretion; court justified restraint on courtroom size, defendant’s attributes, past conduct, and staffing concerns
Whether the trial court erred admitting text messages for lack of authentication under ER 901	State: contents and unique identifiers in texts (nicknames, phrases, signature) sufficiently authenticated sender	Lipinski: Boyes lacked personal knowledge of phone number; content alone insufficient to authenticate	No abuse of discretion; content and distinctive characteristics provided prima facie authentication; challenges go to weight, not admissibility

State v. Jennings, 111 Wn. App. 54 (2002) (defendant’s right to appear free of restraints except in extraordinary circumstances)
State v. Damon, 144 Wn.2d 686 (2001) (restraint error presumed prejudicial unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792 (1999) (court must base courtroom security measures on factual record)
State v. Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d 383 (1981) (legitimate purposes for courtroom restraints: prevent injury, disorder, escape)
State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412 (1985) (harmless‑error standard for constitutional violations)
State v. Young, 192 Wn. App. 850 (2016) (text/e‑mail authentication: recipient’s knowledge of number and message content can suffice)
In re Det. of H.N., 188 Wn. App. 744 (2015) (illustrative methods for authenticating electronic communications)