Opinion
No. 05-15-00354-CR
01-22-2016
MAHOGANY TYLER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 003-81527-2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Evans
Appellant Mahogany Tyler appeals from the judgment adjudicating her guilty of criminal mischief and her accompanying sentence of twelve months' community supervision and a fine of $500 plus court costs. Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and (2) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. Finding no merit in appellant's arguments, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Appellant dated Malik Gordon. In January 2013, Gordon and appellant had a fight and Gordon went to jail. On January 25, 2013, appellant and Traci Wease—Gordon's cousin—began exchanging angry text messages and appellant stated that she was going to come to Traci's house. Traci responded by texting appellant to hurry up and get there and appellant responded that she was there. Traci went outside after that last text message and appellant responded "too late." As Traci approached her car, she noticed that her car window was smashed. Traci further testified that appellant called her on October 6, 2014 to ask if she could pay for the window and not go to court. Thelonious Wease, Traci's husband, testified that during the exchange of text messages on January 25, 2013, he went outside to the front stoop to smoke. He heard a "large smack" sound and walked to the edge of the stoop to see a blue Charger speeding out of the parking lot. Thelonious testified that appellant drives a blue Charger and it is recognizable because she has a "hula thing" with a "silver tassel" on her rearview mirror. Thelonious saw the hula thing as the blue Charger drove away. Detective Robert Henbest, a police officer, testified that he spoke with appellant by calling her cell phone number listed in the file (214-794-5513) which is the same number that sent the text messages to Traci.
Appellant testified and denied breaking the window. Appellant denied texting Traci on January 25, 2013, stating that the cell phone number at issue belonged to Gordon, and that she had a different cell number. The trial court found appellant guilty of criminal mischief and sentenced her to community supervision for 12 months, 60 hours of community service, a fine of $500 plus court costs, a $50 Crime Stoppers fee, restitution in the amount of $178.61, and ordered no contact with Traci or Thelonious Wease. After the trial court denied appellant's motion for new trial, appellant filed this appeal.
ANALYSIS
A. Admission of Cell Phone Text Messages
1. Standard of Review
The standard of review of a trial judge's decision on the admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion. Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Under the applicable standard, the court of appeals does not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, but simply determines whether the trial court's analysis was arbitrary or unreasonable. Ford v. State, 129 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref'd).
2. Analysis
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the photographs of the text messages allegedly between appellant and Traci because the State failed to properly authenticate that the messages were from appellant. We disagree.
As with other types of evidence, text messages may be authenticated by "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter is what its proponent claims." TEX. R. EVID. 901(a); Butler v. State, 459 S.W.3d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). This can be accomplished in myriad ways, depending upon the unique facts and circumstances of each case, including through the testimony of a witness with knowledge or through evidence showing distinctive characteristics. Butler, 459 S.W.3d at 600, TEX. R. EVID. 901(b)(1) (testimony of a witness with knowledge); TEX. R. EVID. 901(b)(4) (distinctive characteristics).
Authenticating evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Butler, 459 S.W.3d at 602. In cases where a sponsoring witness may testify to an association between a cell phone number and a purported author, other evidence may be available that might bridge the logical gap and permit a proper inference that the purported author sent the message. Id. This "other evidence" might include the message's "appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics," which considered in conjunction with other circumstances support a conclusion that a message indeed emanated from the purported author. Id.
Here, Traci testified that she got appellant's telephone number from appellant. Traci confirmed that the same telephone number was present at the top of the screen on the text messages at issue. In the exhibits at issue, the photographs only show a partial number of "214-794." In addition to having communicated with appellant at this telephone number in the past, the content and context of the text messages themselves provided additional circumstantial evidence of the authenticity of the messages. Butler, 459 S.W.3d at 603. In this case, Traci testified that she was talking to appellant in the text messages "saying Mahogany, and she was replying back." Traci also noted that appellant and Traci repeatedly mentioned Gordon in the messages. For example, Traci wrote in one message that "[y]ou put my cousin in jail" and appellant allegedly responded "Lol all the way to the bank." The text messages then refer to the fact that appellant was at Traci's apartment complex on January 25, 2013. Traci sent a text message stating "come over here so I can whoop yo ass." When appellant allegedly responded "on my way," Traci responded back with "yippee!!!! Hurry up!" In addition, Detective Henbest testified that he spoke with appellant by calling the cell number 214-794-5513.
Based upon our review of the challenged exhibits, we conclude that the trial court could have found that the telephone number attributed to appellant was her telephone number and that appellant sent the text messages attributed to her by the State and depicted in the challenged exhibits. Accordingly, the challenged exhibits are relevant and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting them. We overrule appellant's first issue.
B. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support the Conviction
1. Standard of Review
When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Evidence is sufficient if "the inferences necessary to establish guilt are reasonable based upon the cumulative force of all the evidence when considered in the light most favorable to the verdict." Id. If the evidence is conflicting, we "'presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the prosecution' and defer to that determination." Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 326 (1979)).
2. Analysis
A person commits criminal mischief by damage or destruction if he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of an owner without the owner's consent. TEX. PENAL CODE § 28.03(a)(1). Appellant argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence at trial that appellant committed criminal mischief. We disagree.
As stated above, appellant and Traci exchanged numerous angry text messages on the night of January 25, 2013. Traci testified that she recognized the cell number connected to the text messages as appellant's number. Appellant is alleged to have texted that she was going to come to Traci's house. Traci responded to hurry up and get there and appellant responded that she was there. Traci went outside after that last text message and appellant responded "too late." As Traci approached her car, she noticed that her car window was smashed. Thelonious testified that he went outside to the front stoop of the apartment to smoke while his wife was exchanging texts with appellant. He heard a "large smack" sound and walked to the edge of the stoop to see a blue Charger speeding out of the parking lot. Thelonious testified that appellant drives a blue Charger that is recognizable because she has a "hula thing" with a "silver tassel" on her rearview mirror. Thelonious saw the "hula thing" as the blue Charger drove away. Traci further testified that appellant later called her on October 6, 2014 to ask if she could pay for the window and not go to court.
When considered in the light most favorable to the verdict, the facts in this case were sufficient to support a conviction for criminal mischief and we overrule appellant's second issue.
III. CONCLUSION
We resolve appellant's issues against her and affirm the trial court's judgment.
/ David Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
150354F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 003-81527-2013.
Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices Francis and Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 22nd day of January, 2016.