State v. Stephen Mulcahey, 219 A.3d 735

Complainant (17-year-old Victoria) lived with her aunt and the defendant, Stephen Mulcahey, who was a family friend and sometimes provided rides.
On October 27, 2013, while watching a movie at the aunt’s apartment, Victoria testified Mulcahey sexually assaulted her for about thirty minutes; she later discovered vaginal bleeding.
Within hours Victoria received six text messages from Mulcahey (apologetic/affectionate content); she took a screenshot after the final message and showed it to police the next day.
Detective Burlingame interviewed Mulcahey, showed him the screenshot, and Mulcahey admitted sending the messages; Victoria testified she had saved Mulcahey’s number as “Steph” and had previously exchanged texts with that contact to arrange rides.
Mulcahey was indicted for first-degree sexual assault; before trial he moved to suppress the text-message screenshot for lack of authentication under R.I. Evid. 901; the trial justice denied the motion, the jury convicted, and Mulcahey appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the screenshot of text messages was properly authenticated under R.I. R. Evid. 901	Victoria’s testimony about prior exchanges, that she saved Mulcahey’s number as “Steph,” the timing/content of messages, and Mulcahey’s on-scene admission provide sufficient circumstantial authentication	State failed to prove authorship; no direct proof or distinctive characteristics tie the messages to Mulcahey, so the screenshot should have been excluded	Authentication burden is slight; circumstantial evidence (prior texts, saved contact, timing/content, defendant’s admission) sufficiently supported authorship and admission was not an abuse of discretion; conviction affirmed

State v. Stokes, 200 A.3d 144 (R.I. 2019) (standard of appellate review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
State v. Adams, 161 A.3d 1182 (R.I. 2017) (authentication burden is slight; proponent need show evidence is reasonably probable to be what claimed)
O’Connor v. Newport Hospital, 111 A.3d 317 (R.I. 2015) (e-mail authentication may be direct or circumstantial; appearance/contents/distinctive characteristics relevant)
State v. McLaughlin, 935 A.2d 938 (R.I. 2007) (photograph of phone texts authenticated by officer who examined phone)
United States v. Davis, 918 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. 2019) (text-message authentication requires a prima facie showing that the proffered author is who proponent claims; circumstantial evidence may suffice)
United States v. Lewisbey, 843 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2016) (proponent need only show enough evidence to support finding that person sent/received texts)
United States v. Barnes, 803 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2015) (conclusive proof of authorship not required for authentication)