32 A.3d 1026
Me.2011Background
- Churchill was convicted of unlawful sexual contact (Class C) based on a jury verdict after a night of alleged contact with a 12-year-old victim.
- Detectives recorded a telephone call and monitored an AOL Instant Messenger chat between Churchill and the victim.
- The victim emailed a transcript of the online chat to a detective; the State offered a printout of the chat log at trial.
- Churchill objected to the chat log’s admission, arguing the log was not properly authenticated by the victim.
- The trial court admitted the chat log after a voir dire finding that Detective Cotton authenticated it as a printout of the chat seen on screen; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chat log was properly authenticated | Churchill argues lack of proper authentication under Rule 901(a). | Churchill contends authentication failed because victim email may have been altered. | Chat log properly authenticated; admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Webster, 2008 ME 119 (Me. 2008) (establishes admissibility of online chat logs via 901(b)(1) authenticity evidence)
- Berke, 2010 ME 34 (Me. 2010) (supports use of appearance and sequence to infer non-tampering of electronic evidence)