Commonwealth v. Jeremy Amaral
Massachusetts Appeals Court
January 26, 2011
Docket No. 09-P-2284
Solicitation to Commit Felony, Prostitution, Business Record, Authentication, Best Evidence Rule
The defendant was convicted of attempted rape of a child and solicitation of a prostitute. On appeal, the defendant challenged whether an account printout of an electronic document and e-mail correspondence between the defendant and the state trooper, claiming to be a child, should have been admitted at trial. The Appeals Court found no error and affirmed the convictions.
Facts
During the summer of 2007, the state trooper engaged in an undercover operation where he pretended to be Ashley, a 15 year-old prostitute, in a posting on the erotic services section of Craigslist. The trooper used the screen name:“ashley01_10_1992@yahoo.com.”
On August 30, 2007, the defendant, using the e-mail address rdwmercury2006@yahoo.com, contacted Ashley (the trooper) giving a brief description of himself and asking if Ashley wanted to meet up with him. The defendant and Ashley engaged in multiple e-mail conversations that amounted to thirty-seven pages of text. During the conversations, Ashley informed the defendant that she was only fifteen years old; the defendant said he was fine with her age. The defendant also sent Ashley a picture of himself.
On September 17, 2007, the defendant e-mailed Ashley asking if she would meet up with him later that day. To prepare for the meeting, the trooper requested a female trooper assist him and call the phone number the defendant provided Ashley in his e-mail, which the female trooper did. During the phone call, the Ashley (the female trooper) and the defendant arranged to meet at 5:00 pm at a local strip mall. The defendant also stated that he wanted oral sex for fifty dollars.
Prior to the meeting that day, the trooper learned that the telephone number the defendant provided in his e-mail was registered to someone with the same name as the defendant. Comparing the picture the defendant sent him with photographs of people with the same name as the defendant from the Registry of Motor Vehicles, the trooper narrowed the number of suspects with the same name as the defendant to two people.
Later, the trooper set up surveillance at the location upon which the female trooper and the defendant had agreed. The trooper saw the defendant arrive in a car and park at the place the Ashley had directed him. As the defendant walked around in front of the stores, the trooper asked the female trooper to call the defendant again. The trooper then saw the defendant answer his phone. The trooper arrested the defendant.
Account Printout
The defendant first claimed that the account management document introduced at trial was not a business record because Yahoo only stored information entered by users; therefore, Yahoo had no interest in the truth of the information. The document the Commonwealth introduced was a one-page document from Yahoo that stated that the login name of rdwmercury2006 was registered to the defendant. The document was also accompanied by an affidavit from the custodian of the records for Yahoo. The Appeals Court concluded that the document was admitted properly under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The notion that Yahoo only recorded information entered by its users and therefore relied on the personal knowledge of others went to the weight of the document. Standing alone, the Court found the document’s weight was relatively weak. However, taken in conjunction with the other evidence presented by the Commonwealth, it had more strength.
E-mail Communications
The defendant’s next argument was that the thirty-seven pages of e-mail communication between the defendant and the trooper (Ashley) was neither properly authenticated nor in conformity with the best evidence rule.
The Court found that the e-mails were properly authenticated by the defendant himself, which satisfies the requirement that the a witness testify that a thing is what its proponents represented it to be or that circumstances exist that imply the thing is what it is represented to be. One of the e-mails said that the defendant would be at a certain place at a certain time and the defendant was at that place at the stated time. Another e-mail contained the defendant’s telephone number, which the defendant answered when the trooper called that number. Another e-mail from the defendant included a picture, which was later confirmed to be a picture of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant’s actions helped authenticate the e-mail communication.
The Court also found that the best evidence rule was satisfied. The Court found that the defendant primarily appeared to be challenging the authenticity of the e-mails again. Second, the Court found it was unnecessary to retrieve the e-mails from Yahoo’s servers or to bring the computer drive to court to satisfy the best evidence rule. Third, the Court concluded that the best evidence rule has lost some of its significance as the invention of photocopy machines and computers have improved the quality of duplicates. Lastly, the Court noted that a duplicate computer data or program file was admissible per G.L.c. 233 § 79K. Therefore, the best evidence rule was satisfied.
The Court affirmed the judgments.
- Prepared by JM
