The People v. Chris Price, 29 N.Y.3d 472

Background

Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery based on eyewitness testimony that a gun was held to the victim; the eyewitness did not see the assailant’s face and could not identify defendant at trial.
The People sought to admit a printout of a digital image from BlackPlanet.com allegedly showing defendant holding a handgun and cash; the printout had been posted months before the robbery.
A detective testified she located a public profile with username “Price_OneofKind,” containing photos resembling defendant; she printed the photo and testified the printout matched what she saw online but did not know who took it, when or where, or whether it was altered.
The victim testified the gun in the printout looked "similar" to the robbery weapon but could not positively identify it; the detective later identified defendant in the picture.
Trial court admitted the photograph over defendant’s authentication objection; Appellate Division affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted leave and reversed, ordering a new trial because the People failed to authenticate the image.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Price’s Argument	Held
Whether the printout/digital image was sufficiently authenticated to be admitted as evidence	The printout was an accurate depiction of a public web page and the profile page bore defendant’s surname and photos, so circumstantial indicia sufficed to attribute the page to Price	The People failed to show the image was a fair and accurate representation or that the web profile was controlled by Price; no proof the image wasn’t altered	Reversed — authentication insufficient; admission was error requiring new trial
Whether testimony that a victim thought a pictured gun looked “similar” is adequate authentication of the weapon depicted	The victim’s "similar" identification supports relevance and identification of the weapon	A mere “looks similar” statement does not authenticate the photograph as a genuine depiction of the robbery weapon	Court found victim’s testimony did not satisfy authentication here; failure to authenticate on other grounds was dispositive
Whether proof that a profile contains defendant’s surname and photos alone suffices to attribute the profile to defendant	Circumstantial indicia (name, photos) can support attribution under some out‑of‑state two‑prong approaches	Surname and photos alone are too tenuous to show dominion or control of the profile by defendant	Court held surname/photos alone insufficient; must show defendant’s control/connection to the account
Whether the Court should adopt a single, comprehensive test for authenticating social‑media evidence	People urged a flexible two‑prong approach used by other jurisdictions (printout accuracy + account attribution)	Price urged stricter traditional authentication standards; argued existing tests should apply	Court declined to adopt a uniform test now; held record here failed under any plausible standard and left broader rulemaking to future cases

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) (authentication is prerequisite to admissibility)
People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48 (N.Y. 1979) (evidence must be genuine and untampered-with to establish authenticity)
People v. Byrnes, 33 N.Y.2d 343 (N.Y. 1974) (photograph admissibility requires testimony it accurately represents the subject depicted)
People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80 (N.Y. 1999) (authentication standard is flexible; foundational proof may differ by evidence type)
United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (discusses limits of attributing social‑media accounts to individuals without stronger proof)