372 P.3d 91
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Tim G. Wager was charged and convicted of possession of methamphetamine (second-degree felony) and marijuana (class A misdemeanor); sentence suspended with jail time and probation.
- On rebuttal, the State introduced a photograph from an informant (Wager’s ex‑girlfriend) that appears to show Wager in his bathroom smoking a meth pipe.
- Wager objected, arguing insufficient authentication under Utah Rule of Evidence 901 and other evidentiary defects (Rule 608, relevance/date, original-document rules, and Rule 404(b)/motion in limine).</n- The State presented a police detective who had searched Wager’s residence, taken his own photograph of the bathroom, and testified that the informant’s photograph accurately depicted Wager and his bathroom (the detective had not witnessed the act in the photo).
- The trial court admitted the informant’s photograph; the jury convicted Wager. On appeal the primary dispute was whether the photograph was properly authenticated and whether other evidentiary objections were preserved or adequately briefed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of photograph (Rule 901) | State: detective’s testimony comparing his photo to the informant’s photo and identifying Wager/bathroom sufficed for authentication | Wager: detective lacked personal knowledge of the events in the photo; photograph therefore unauthenticated | Court: admission within trial court’s discretion; detective’s comparison evidence provided sufficient foundation for authentication; jury decides ultimate authenticity |
| Rule 608 objection (impeachment/character) | State: (implicitly) photographic evidence used for rebuttal of Wager’s direct testimony | Wager: trial court failed to address Rule 608 objection | Court: inadequately briefed on appeal; record shows trial court addressed 608 twice; issue declined |
| Relevance / date of photograph | State: photo rebutted Wager’s testimony that no one used drugs at his residence | Wager: prosecution couldn’t prove when photo was taken, so it was irrelevant | Court: inadequately briefed; nevertheless, photo was relevant to contradict Wager’s testimony even without a precise date |
| Original-evidence rules (Rules 1002,1004,1007) | Wager: original photograph required; State failed to produce/origin not shown | Wager asserts noncompliance | Court: unpreserved on appeal (no timely/ specific trial objection or record citation); declined to address |
| 404(b)/Motion in Limine for specific-act evidence | Wager: photo was specific bad-act evidence and should have been the subject of a motion in limine/404(b) notice | State: offered photo as rebuttal/circumstantial evidence of activity at residence | Court: issue unpreserved and inadequately briefed; not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Purcell, 711 P.2d 243 (Utah 1985) (photograph admissible where witness testifies it depicts victim’s property seized from defendant)
- State v. Bloomfield, 63 P.3d 110 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (investigator’s testimony identifying suspect and premises on recorded video can suffice for authentication)
- State v. Woodard, 330 P.3d 1283 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (trial court’s screening function for authentication; admissibility rests within discretion)
- State v. Sapp, 332 P.3d 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (photograph authenticated by witness identifying individuals, ages, and location; no requirement that witness be present at creation)