State v. Christopher M. Palermo, 129 A.3d 1020

Defendant Christopher Palermo met the victim while incarcerated; she helped him with a civil lawsuit and he moved into her home after parole.
In early February 2012, the victim testified Palermo made unwanted sexual advances (groping breasts and buttocks) and later digitally penetrated her while she was asleep.
The victim’s husband observed the defendant on the bed touching the victim under the covers; the defendant later apologized and asked for a “pass.”
The family’s teenage son (D.L.) created and used a Facebook account for the defendant on the family iPad; the iPad remained logged into the account after the defendant left.
Facebook messages from the defendant’s account (including admissions and threatening/sex-related messages) were printed and offered at trial; the State proffered testimony linking those messages to the defendant.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated felonious sexual assault, criminal trespass, and two counts of simple assault; he appealed challenging (1) authentication of Facebook messages, (2) admission of prior incarceration/parole/civil-suit evidence, and (3) admission of a (redacted) photograph.

Issue	State's Argument	Palermo's Argument	Held
Authentication of Facebook messages	Proffered testimony (D.L. created account, used iPad, defendant used iPad; messages contained details only few would know) sufficed under Rule 901	Messages could have been sent by someone else from an open account; family could have altered printouts	Authentication sustainable — circumstantial evidence created a prima facie link; recipient testimony not always required; State need not rule out all alternatives
Admission of prior incarceration/parole and civil lawsuit	Evidence provided context for how they met and why defendant lived there; limiting instruction would cure prejudice	Evidence unfairly prejudicial and amounted to impermissible character evidence	Admission sustainable: limited purpose, no details of prior crimes, and jury instructions mitigated unfair prejudice
Admission of photograph (redacted)	Photo showed why victim feared defendant; relevant to delay in reporting	Photo was prejudicial and had no probative value	Any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — overwhelming alternative evidence (victim, husband, D.L., defendant’s statements, Facebook messages) rendered photograph cumulative

State v. Stangle, 166 N.H. 407 (N.H. 2014) (authentication bar is low; circumstantial proof can suffice)
State v. Ruggiero, 163 N.H. 129 (N.H. 2012) (discussed e-mail authentication and recipient testimony in context)
State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276 (N.H. 2015) (standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary discretion)
State v. Towle, 167 N.H. 315 (N.H. 2015) (contextual evidence probative but must be balanced against Rule 403 prejudice)
State v. Russo, 164 N.H. 585 (N.H. 2013) (lessened prejudice where parole references lacked specifics)
State v. Wells, 166 N.H. 73 (N.H. 2014) (harmless-error standard: verdict unaffected beyond a reasonable doubt)