Evidence – Text message – Social media posts

Listen to this article

Where a jury convicted a defendant of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding (1) that a text message and social media posts were probative of the defendant’s animus toward the victims and thus relevant to both the element of intent and the defendant’s claim of self-defense and (2) that the evidence‘s probative value was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

Affirmed.

“A jury convicted the defendant, Adrian Hinds, of two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon based on evidence that the defendant attacked two victims with a hammer. At trial, the defendant admitted that he hit each of the two victims, Miranda Arthur-Smith and Nathaniel Cherniak, with a hammer, but claimed he was acting in self-defense. After the defendant’s testimony partly contradicted the victims’ testimony regarding his prior relationship with them, the Commonwealth introduced in rebuttal, over the defendant’s objection, one text message and two social media posts that the Commonwealth argued demonstrated the defendant’s animosity toward the victims. The defendant then sought to call an expert in surrebuttal to dispute the social media posts’ authenticity. The trial judge excluded the testimony because the defendant had not timely disclosed the expert as a potential witness.

“On appeal, the defendant challenges the admission of the text message and social media posts, arguing they were ‘greatly’ more prejudicial than probative. He also claims the exclusion of expert testimony regarding the authenticity of these posts violated his constitutional right to present a defense. We discern no error. Appropriately applying the admissibility standard applicable to evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the text message and social media posts were probative of the defendant’s animus toward the victims and thus relevant to both the element of intent and the defendant’s claim of self-defense, and that the evidence’s probative value was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Nor did the judge abuse his discretion or violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense in excluding the proposed expert testimony. We therefore affirm.”

Commonwealth v. Hinds (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-106-24) (29 pages) (Dewar, J.) The cases were tried before John S. Ferrara, J., in Superior Court. Elaine Fronhofer on appeal for the defendant; Joseph G.A. Coliflores for the commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-13538) (Sept. 23, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.