COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KHALID JACKSON
No. 1427 EDA 2021
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 13, 2022
2022 PA Super 156
J-S17027-22; Aрpeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 21, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005165-2019
OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.:
FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
Khalid Jackson appeals from the judgment of sentence,1 entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his conviction of first-degree murder and related offenses. After careful review, we affirm.
On April 11, 2019, at 5:00 p.m., decedent, Raymond Grimes, was walking to his parked car on 9th and Somerset Streets in Philadelphia when an individual wearing black clothing and a mask chased him, shot at him, and fled the scene. N.T. Jury Trial, 5/19/21, at 56-58. Thе perpetrator shot Grimes fourteen times with a .40 caliber gun that had an extended magazine.
Hascir Walton, a friend of both Jackson and Grimes, witnessed the shooting and testified at trial. Walton testified that he identified Jackson as the shooter when he met with the Philadelphia Homicide Unit upon being arrested for unrelated charges. Id., 5/18/21, at 172-73. Walton also testified that Jackson called Walton from Jackson’s girlfriend’s phone to ask him to look for Jackson’s phone, which Jackson believed he had lost at the scene of the shooting. Id. at 180. Jackson subsequently called Walton back to say that he found it. Id. аt 181. Jackson was arrested on May 10, 2019, for Grimes’ murder. Id., 5/19/21, at 139.
A jury trial commenced on May 17, 2021. During the trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence from three Instagram accounts with the following usernames: “cod_boosie,” “jackboy_boosie,” and “jaсkboy_x2.”2 Defense counsel conceded at trial that Jackson was the owner of the “cod_boosie” account.3 Id., 5/18/21, at 22. The Commonwealth presented pictures from the “jackboy_boosie” account and “jackboy_x2” account, which included pictures of Jackson’s nickname, “Boosie,” spelled out in cash, a firearm with an extended magazine, and a video of Jackson holding a gun in
On May 21, 2021, a jury convicted Jackson of first-degree murder,4 carrying a firearm without a license,5 carrying a firearm on a public street or public property,6 possessing an instrument of crime,7 and recklessly endangering another person.8 Jackson proceeded immediately to sentencing and the court sentenced him to life in prison,9 followed by two consecutive sentences оf three to six months’ incarceration for contempt of court due to Jackson’s inappropriate decorum during trial.10 The court imposed no further penalty on the remaining convictions. Jackson filed a post-sentencе motion, which was denied on July 1, 2021.
Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. He now raises one question for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it permitted the Commonwealth to admit [into evidence] photos and videos allegedly posted by [Jackson] on two Instagram accounts[,] where the Commonwealth failed to properly authenticate the social media posts under Pa.R.E. 901 by establishing [Jackson’s] authorship of the posts or ownership of the accounts?
Appellant Brief, at 4.
Instantly, Jackson argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the above-described sociаl media accounts where the Commonwealth failed to authenticate the content under
When we review a trial court’s ruling on admission of evidеnce, we must acknowledge that decisions on admissibility are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion or misapplication of law. In addition, for a ruling on evidence to constitute reversible error, it must have been harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unrеasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused.
Commonwealth v. Talley, 236 A.3d 42, 55 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations omitted).
Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 901 governs the authentication of evidence, requiring authentication prior to the admission of electronic evidence. See Commonwealth v. Murray, 174 A.3d 1147, 1157 (Pa. Super. 2017). Generally, authentication requires a low burden of proof:
The proponent оf the evidence must introduce sufficient evidence that the matter is what it purports to be. See
Pa.R.E. 901(a) . Testimony of a witness with personal knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be can be sufficient. SeePa.R.E. 901(b)(1) . Evidence that cannot be authenticated by a knowledgeable person, pursuant to [Pa.R.E. 901(b)(1) ], may be authenticated by other parts of [Pa.R.E. 901(b) ], including circumstantial evidence pursuant to [Pa.R.E. 901(b)(4) ]. SeePa.R.E. 901(b)(4) .11
Commonwealth v. Mangel, 181 A.3d 1154, 1160 (Pa. Super. 2018)
This section provides:
(11) Digital Evidence. To connect digital evidеnce with a person or entity:
(A) direct evidence such as testimony of a person with personal knowledge; or
(B) circumstantial evidence such as:
(i) identifying content; or
(ii) proof of ownership, possession, control, or access to a device or account at the relevant time when corroborated by circumstances indicating authorship.
This Court has stated that the amendment to Rule 901 is consistent with the prior prevailing law. Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072, 1081-82 (Pa. Super. 2015) (аuthentication of electronic communications requires more than mere confirmation that number or addresses belonged to a particular individual; circumstantial evidence that tends to corroborate the identity of the sеnder, required); Commonwealth v. Orr, 255 A.3d 589, 601 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2021). We have also recognized that social media evidence presents challenges for authentication because of the ease with which a social media account may be falsified, or a legitimate account may be accessed by an imposter. Commonwealth v. Daney, 210 A.2d 333, 338 (Pa. Super. 2019). However, we have acknowledged that the same uncertainties can exist with other types of evidence, such as written documents where signatures could be forged, or a lеtterhead copied. See In re F.P., 878 A.2d 91, 95 (Pa. Super. 2005).
We adhere to the same standards of authentication for social media accounts as with text messages and instant messages. Id.; see Mosley, 114 A.3d at 1082.
Initially, [the authentication of social media evidence] is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not there has been an adequate foundational showing of its relevance and authenticity. Additionally, the proponent of social media evidence must present direct or circumstantial evidence that tends to corroborate the identity of the author of the communication in question, such as testimony from the person who sent or received the communication, or contextual сlues in the communication tending to reveal the identity of the sender. Other courts examining the authentication of social media records have ruled that the mere fact that an electronic communication, on its face, purports to originate from a certain person’s social networking account is generally insufficient, standing alone, to authenticate that person as the author of the communication.
Id. (citations omitted).
Here, the Commonwealth presentеd evidence that Jackson went by the nicknames “Jackboy” and “Boosie.” N.T. Jury Trial, 5/17/21, at 15-16. Additionally, the Commonwealth introduced the names of the following accounts: “cod_boosie,” “jackboy_boosie,” and “jackboy_x2.” Id., 5/18/21, at 13-16, 22. The Commonweаlth also introduced the biographical sections of all these accounts, which are all similar to each other, and all the accounts contained a pindrop location at “9somerset” along with the phrases “Chopordrop,” “The real jackboy no cap just ask around,” and “#freesheem.” Id., 5/17/21, at 19; id., 5/21/21, at 12; see Trial Court Opinion, 9/14/21, at 5. Next, the Commonwealth established that both accounts featured pictures of Jackson, taken by both Jackson himself and by others. N.T. Jury Trial, 5/18/21, at 11-12, 18-20; id., 5/19/21, at 87-91. The information contained in the “jackboy_boosie” and “jackboy_x2” accounts is consistent with the information present on the “cod_boosie” account, which Jackson admitted he
We further observe that the trial court opinion lists these similarities between the “jackboy_boosie” and “jackboy_x2” accounts and Jackson’s “cod_boosie” account, recognizing that “all three [accounts] featured phоtos of [Jackson] as the profile picture [,] contained numerous other photographs of [Jackson] . . . [and] had substantially similar bios, and featured identical nicknames, hashtags, locations, and statements.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/14/21, at 7.
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth properly authenticated these social media accounts because there was substantial circumstantial evidence linking the acсounts to Jackson. Mosley, supra; Daney, supra. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and, thus, Jackson is entitled to no relief. See Talley, supra.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/13/2022