State v. Welsh, 2022 UT App 112

On the evening in question Welsh forced entry into his ex‑girlfriend’s apartment, kicked down the bathroom door, dragged the victim out by her ankles, and tried to bind her; the roommate witnessed the attack and feared for her life.
The victim later went to an emergency room where staff observed she was frightened; she made statements to medical personnel about being grabbed and shaken and that she had been kidnapped; Welsh intermittently remained in or near the ER and staff involved security.
Later that night the victim showed a police officer photographs of a series of text messages received that evening from a contact labeled “Harleyy”; the officer photographed the texts and linked the sending number to a phone number for Welsh in a police database.
At trial the victim did not testify. The district court admitted (1) the officer’s photographs of the texts after finding them authenticated and (2) two of the victim’s ER statements under the medical‑diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception.
The jury convicted Welsh of multiple charges (acquitted on aggravated kidnapping), and he appealed, challenging the texts’ authentication and admission of the ER statements (arguing lack of intent to facilitate treatment and hearsay error).
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the texts were sufficiently authenticated for the jury and any error in admitting the ER statements was harmless given the strength of other evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authentication of text messages	State: Photographs of texts on victim’s phone, contact labeled "Harleyy," matching phone number in police database, timing/content tied to the incident—sufficient for prima facie authentication under Utah R. Evid. 901	Welsh: Officer lacked personal knowledge; link to Welsh was hearsay/database unreliable; texts could have been altered or sent by others	Court: No abuse of discretion—circumstantial evidence (label, number match, timing, content) sufficed to authenticate for jury resolution
Admission of victim’s ER statements under medical‑diagnosis/treatment exception	State: Statements to treating doctor/nurse related to diagnosis/treatment and provided context for injuries—admissible under Utah R. Evid. 803(4)	Welsh: Victim did not make statements to obtain diagnosis/treatment; admission was hearsay and prejudicial, likely affected verdicts	Court: Even if admission were erroneous, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong eyewitness testimony, photos, ER observations, and authenticated texts; convictions affirmed

State v. Otkovic, 322 P.3d 746 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (upholding text‑message authentication based on circumstantial evidence and timing)
State v. Jacques, 924 P.2d 898 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (distinguishing court’s authentication process from jury’s ultimate finding of authenticity)
State v. Wager, 372 P.3d 91 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (authentication requires prima facie showing, not conclusive proof)
State v. Bell, 770 P.2d 100 (Utah 1988) (standard for demonstrating prejudice on appeal)
State v. Ellis, 417 P.3d 86 (Utah 2018) (explaining counterfactual harmless‑error/prejudice analysis)
State v. Clark, 376 P.3d 1089 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (harmless‑error framework for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Maese, 236 P.3d 155 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (reviewing facts in light most favorable to verdict)