In this Scotland County case, defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing error in admitting (1) photos of Facebook messages allegedly sent by defendant, and (2) a CAD report of a 911 call. The Court of Appeals found no error.

In December of 2020, defendant and several family and friends were gathered at home, when a dispute broke out between defendant and his older brother. The dispute culminated with defendant pulling a gun and shooting his older brother on the porch. Family members called 911 and the sheriff’s office responded, finding the victim dead on the ground. At trial, the victim’s daughter testified that she communicated with defendant through Facebook Messenger because defendant did not have a phone with service, and she believed the victim also communicated with defendant that way. The State offered photographs showing a Facebook Messenger conversation between the victim and defendant, and the trial court overruled defense counsel’s objections to the authentication of the exhibit. The State also offered a one-page CAD report from a 911 call received two hours after the incident. The trial court allowed this exhibit solely for the purpose of establishing the call occurred, but did not allow discussion of the conversation.

Beginning with (1), the Court of Appeals noted that “the burden to authenticate under Rule 901 is not high—only a prima facie showing is required” and looked to the circumstantial evidence for support that the messages were actually sent to and from defendant. Slip Op. at 9 (quoting State v. Ford, 245 N.C. App. 510, 519 (2016)). The court found sufficient evidence in the testimony of the victim’s daughter, as “the use of Facebook Messenger was consistent with Defendant’s behavior,” and from a deputy who testified how he retrieved the messages from the victim’s phone and read several messages that “contained references and information corroborating their authenticity.” Id. at 11. This led the court to conclude it was not error to admit the Facebook Messenger comments.

Moving to (2), defendant argued “the trial court’s decisions to admit the CAD report showing a 911 call had been received approximately two hours after the incident and to exclude the content of the call were inconsistent.” Id. at 12. The court disagreed, explaining that defendant objected the CAD report was not relevant, and the standard for relevancy is “relatively lax.” Id. at 13 (quoting State v. McElrath, 322 N.C. 1, 13 (1988)). Here, the CAD report made the fact that an incident occurred in the early morning more likely, and the trial court concluded the actual substance of the call was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. The court explained that “these rulings are consistent and show an effort by the trial court to provide jurors with explanatory information . . . while protecting Defendant from undue prejudice.” Id. at 14.