Using social media as evidence in criminal courtrooms in Charlotte and throughout North Carolina has become an everyday reality. Facebook messages, Instagram chats, and other online
In North Carolina, these inquiries fall under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, which guide judges and attorneys in determining which materials the jury is allowed to see. A recent appellate opinion, State v. Davenport, provides an up-close look at how courts tackle social media evidence in serious felony prosecutions.
By examining pictures taken of Facebook Messenger images displayed on a cell phone, the court explored how to authenticate digital content and manage related evidence (like 911 logs) to ensure a fair process. Below, we break down the facts of the case, the legal standards applied, and the broader implications for defendants facing criminal charges and attorneys dealing with social media evidence in the Tar Heel State.
Why State v. Davenport Matters for Social Media Evidence
Although social media evidence can be compelling, upon proper objection courts confirm that the content is both relevant to a trial and accurately attributed to the purported sender or account holder. In North Carolina v. Davenport, these issues arose in the context of a first-degree murder trial involving two brothers, Jimmy Davenport (Defendant) and Frankie Tyrone Davenport (the victim).
- Serious Criminal Charges Involving Digital Evidence
Jimmy Davenport stood accused of shooting and killing his brother at a private residence in Scotland County, North Carolina. Witnesses recalled that the defendant argued with the victim on the night of December 10, 2020, before a firearm was discharged through a window on the front porch. Police arrived at the scene after multiple 911 calls were made, one of which was later documented in a “CAD report.” - Facebook Messenger as Key Evidence
During the trial, the State sought to show that tensions between Davenport and his brother escalated and that Davenport had allegedly threatened the victim beforehand (“I hope you enjoy your day with [decedent’s son] ’cause this may [be] your last one with him”). To prove this, prosecutors introduced photographs of Facebook messages from the victim’s phone, asserting these messages came from Jimmy Davenport’s personal Facebook account—particularly referencing an account name “Jimmy D,” with further references to “big bro.” The defense challenged whether these messages were actually written by Davenport or were even admissible as evidence. - CAD Report on the 911 Call
Another focal point was a “CAD report.” This is a Computer-Aided Dispatch log that notes the date and time a call is placed to 911. The defense claimed the CAD report, which indicated an additional 911 call came in a few hours after the shooting, was irrelevant or prejudicial. The trial court let the basic record of the call’s existence come before the jury but excluded more inflammatory details about the call itself.
These two evidentiary disputes—about Facebook screenshots and a 911 record—show how courts approach social media evidence under North Carolina law. Below, we delve into each dispute and explain how the North Carolina Rules of Evidence informed the appellate court’s reasoning.
Authenticating Facebook Messages Under Rule 901
Rule 901: Laying the Foundation
Every document, photograph, or digital file used in a North Carolina courtroom must pass through an authentication gate. Rule 901(a) provides: “The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” In lay terms, the proponent (usually the prosecutor in criminal cases) must offer some evidence—even if indirect or circumstantial—that the messages genuinely came from the defendant.
Distinctive Characteristics and Content
Under Rule 901(b)(4), distinctive characteristics—such as the content of the messages, the style of writing, or personal references—can help prove authenticity. Courts may not require forensic proof of an IP address or direct witness testimony from the platform provider if the circumstantial evidence is persuasive.
Evidence in Davenport Supporting Authenticity
In State v. Davenport, the prosecution used multiple building blocks to lay a foundation for authenticating the Facebook messages:
- Witness Testimony About Device Ownership
A key witness testified that the phone displaying these Facebook messages belonged to the victim. She recognized it from the scene, and she knew the victim himself used Facebook Messenger to communicate with people, including the defendant. - Witness Identification of Account Handle
The same witness noted that Davenport did not have a phone with active service, so he used Facebook Messenger exclusively to communicate. This lined up with the account nickname “Jimmy D.” on the victim’s Messenger thread. - Contents of the Messages
The messages referenced the victim’s medical treatments and the fact that the victim was Davenport’s “big bro.” These details had distinctive characteristics that made it more likely the account was controlled by Davenport. He apparently had personal knowledge of the victim’s life, including a dialysis appointment and family relationships.
Appellate Court’s Conclusion
The North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed that enough circumstantial evidence existed to conclude that the Facebook messages were authentic. The possibility that someone else could have used Davenport’s account did not bar admissibility; it merely became a jury question regarding the weight of the evidence. The Court emphasized that Rule 901 requires only a basic showing that the evidence is what it purports to be, not an ironclad guarantee of authorship.
Fourth Amendment Rights in Traffic Stops
Relevance and the CAD Report of a 911 Call
Apart from the Facebook messages, the defendant also objected to the introduction of a 911 CAD report. CAD reports are official logs that dispatch centers generate whenever they receive calls for emergency services. They typically include basic data: the caller’s phone number, address, or a timestamp.
Rule 401 and 402: Relevance Threshold
Under Rule 401, evidence must have “any tendency” to make a fact more or less probable. If it meets that minimal threshold, Rule 402 holds that it’s generally admissible unless otherwise excluded by rule or law.
- CAD Report and Timeline
In Davenport, the CAD report showed that a second call came into the Emergency Call Center hours after the fatal shooting. The prosecution argued it provided context for law enforcement’s response, as one deputy testified that he left the scene because of another 911 call that came in about the same incident or the same suspect. - Excluding the Call’s Contents
However, the trial judge restricted the evidence to the fact that a call came in at a certain time, without allowing testimony about what the 911 caller might have said regarding threats or blame. The court considered that such statements could unfairly prejudice the defendant in the evidentiary balancing test.
Rule 403: Unfair Prejudice vs. Probative Value
Even if evidence is relevant under Rule 401, a judge may still exclude it under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In Davenport, the trial court balanced these concerns and decided:
- Yes—The fact that a second call to 911 happened was relevant, because it explained the deputy’s conduct and timeline.
- No—The details or contents of that second call risked overshadowing the main issues and had the potential to unfairly prejudice the jury.
The Court of Appeals held this was within the trial court’s discretion. By allowing the limited admission of the CAD record to show that a call came in and excluding the substance of the caller’s statements, the court struck a middle ground—giving the jury basic information without risking undue prejudice to Davenport.
What is Probable Cause?
Practical Observations About Social Media Evidence
State v. Davenport highlights broader lessons on social media evidence and other forms of digital content in North Carolina. While each case hinges on unique facts, attorneys and folks facing criminal charges can draw guidance from this ruling:
- Circumstantial Proof Is Often Enough
Direct proof (like a company’s IP logs or a sworn statement from Facebook staff) can bolster a case, but it’s not always essential. Courts weigh whether the details in the content—nicknames, personal references, timing—point to a particular individual. - Challenges to Authenticity Go to Weight, Not Admissibility
A defendant may argue someone else used an account to send incriminating messages. But if the prosecution makes a basic threshold showing, the question of authorship typically becomes a factual dispute for the jury. - Courts Apply Familiar Rules to New Contexts
The way courts evaluate an email or Facebook post mirrors how they treat old-fashioned letters: “Is there evidence linking the document to the person purportedly behind it?” That is the essence of Rule 901. - Limited Admission Curbs Prejudice
Judges can allow partial records—like a CAD report stating the time of a 911 call—while excluding potentially prejudicial or inflammatory content. This approach is grounded in Rule 403, ensuring that juries see only what they need to evaluate the facts responsibly.
Criminal Law FAQs & Answers to Your Questions
Balancing Technology and Due Process
The legal system evolves slowly, but Davenport shows how courts strive to keep pace with technological advances. When the state prosecutes someone for a serious felony using social media evidence, concerns inevitably arise about the accuracy and authorship of content and the potential for forgery or manipulation of accounts. North Carolina judges respond by:
- Relying on time-tested concepts like authentication, relevance, and balancing probative value against unfair prejudice.
- Recognizing that social media platforms are widespread in everyday life, making them potential legitimate sources of evidence if properly established.
- Allowing each side the opportunity to challenge or rebut the digital evidence presented.
What State v. Davenport Means for Your Case
While State v. Davenport involved a tragic homicide, the Court’s reasoning on social media evidence could apply to a lot of different types of criminal charges (and even civil litigation), where digital communications are disputed. Key takeaways include:
- Prosecutors may be allowed to introduce Facebook messages if they can tie the content, handle, or other circumstantial indicators to the defendant’s identity.
- Defense attorneys will continue to question whether the person allegedly sending messages was truly at the keyboard. Evidence of account sharing, hacking, or forced access may cast doubt on authenticity and authorship.
- Courts emphasize that full-blown proof of authorship is not always required at the pre-admission stage. The party offering the evidence need only clear a prima facie hurdle; the jury decides the rest.
For anyone finding themselves in legal disputes—especially criminal cases—it’s a good idea to understand that anything posted or messaged online could surface at trial if it ties into the core facts under scrutiny.
Patdown Frisks: What You Need to Know
Social Media Evidence and Legal Guidance
State v. Davenport illustrates how North Carolina courts assess social media evidence under established evidentiary rules. From the requirement of authentication (Rule 901) to the balancing test of probative value outweighing unfair prejudice (Rule 403), the courts draw upon foundational principles to handle rapidly evolving technology. Whether you’re a defendant, an attorney, or someone interested in modern litigation, the Davenport case stands for the precept that Facebook posts and Messenger chats may be admissible, possibly influencing outcomes in criminal proceedings—provided they pass muster at the admissibility stage.
If you have questions about social media evidence, criminal charges, or other legal matters in the Charlotte region, please contact the Powers Law Firm at 704-342-4357. We help people in places like Mecklenburg County, Monroe in Union County, Mooresville and Statesville, in Iredell County, as well as Gaston, Rowan, and Lincolnton, when able. It would be an honor to help you understand your rights, the rules of evidence, and how they apply to today’s digital reality.