493 P.3d 418
N.M. Ct. App.2021Background
- Late on Feb. 25, 2020, Jeremiah Erickson testified Child pushed him aside, jumped into his running 2002 Dodge Durango, and drove off; the vehicle later crashed and was totaled.
- Erickson and Child regularly communicated via Facebook Messenger; Erickson produced printouts of messages allegedly sent by Child the next day apologizing, admitting she was "drunk," and referencing the wreck.
- At the adjudicatory hearing Child objected to admission of the Facebook messages for lack of authentication and objected to a courthouse rule requiring witnesses to wear face masks; she requested face shields or a continuance.
- The district court admitted the Facebook messages over objection, required masks per the New Mexico Supreme Court COVID-19 Order, denied face shields and denied an indefinite continuance; a jury found Child delinquent for unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and reckless driving.
- The Court of Appeals held the Facebook messages were not properly authenticated and their admission was not harmless error, reversed and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing; it upheld the mask rule and denial of continuance and found the non-erroneous evidence supported the offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of Facebook messages | Printouts showing Child's name/photo plus Erickson's testimony sufficiently link the account and messages to Child | No adequate foundation or proof the account/messages were authored by Child; accounts can be faked or accessed by others | Admission was an abuse of discretion: State failed to authenticate messages under Rule 11-901(A); admission was not harmless — reversal and remand required |
| Sufficiency of evidence for delinquency adjudications | Erickson's eyewitness account, scene photos, and the Facebook messages established unlawful taking and reckless driving beyond a reasonable doubt | Only Erickson testified to Child’s possession; no physical forensic proof Child drove the Durango | Evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings (examined including all admitted evidence), but reversal still required because of prejudicial admission of the messages |
| Confrontation Clause — face masks vs. face shields | Mask requirement implemented under Supreme Court COVID-19 Order furthers important public health interest and preserves oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor | Masks prevent full observation of facial expressions and impair Child’s confrontation rights; requested face shields instead | No constitutional violation: masks did not deny confrontation rights; face shields are not an adequate substitute under the Court’s COVID-19 protocol |
| Motion to continue (indefinite) to avoid mask rule | Denial appropriate given public-safety protocol, scheduling concerns, and timing of request | Trial should be continued until masks are not required so witnesses can testify without masks | No abuse of discretion: request was indefinite, made on the morning of trial, and failed to show prejudice from denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Imperial, 392 P.3d 658 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017) (authentication standard under Rule 11-901)
- State v. Trujillo, 42 P.3d 814 (N.M. 2002) (trial court discretion on admission of evidence)
- United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (social-media evidence and authentication analysis)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (Confrontation Clause exception where important public policy is implicated and reliability assured)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (confessions’ potent effect on juries; prejudicial potential)
- State v. Jackson, 429 P.3d 674 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018) (admission of electronic communications may require forensic or corroborating proof)
- State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (N.M. 2015) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)