AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of harassment based on evidence that included a "phone dump" containing text messages between the Defendant and the victim. The victim authenticated some but not all of the messages contained within the "phone dump."

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the entirety of the "phone dump" into evidence when the victim had only authenticated some of the messages. Contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, specifically challenging the credibility of the sole eyewitness who testified at trial (paras 2, 6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the "phone dump" into evidence when the victim had only authenticated some of the messages.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for harassment.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the Defendant's harassment conviction (para 7).

Reasons

• Per Kristina Bogardus, J., concurred by Jennifer L. Attrep, J., and Shammara H. Henderson, J.:
  The Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the "phone dump" as evidence. It was determined that the victim's testimony that the "phone dump" contained copies of text messages sent between her and the Defendant satisfied the authentication requirement, even if she did not authenticate every message (paras 3-4).
  The Court also concluded that the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, specifically the credibility of the sole eyewitness, was a matter for the fact-finder to resolve. The Defendant did not present any new facts, authority, or argument that persuaded the Court that the proposed summary disposition was incorrect (para 6).