People v. Glover

Citation363 P.3d 736
Decision Date26 February 2015
Docket NumberCourt of Appeals No. 13CA0098
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Roger Julius GLOVER, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, John T. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Neff Services, Inc., Lauretta A. Martin Neff, Bayfield, Colorado, for DefendantAppellant.

Opinion by JUDGE DAILEY

¶ 1 Defendant, Roger Julius Glover, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree (after deliberation) murder. We affirm.

I. Background

¶ 2 Defendant, who went by the name "Brooklyn," was the thirty-six-year-old "leader" of a "street family" of homeless and runaway teens and young adults. The dead body of one of those young adults was discovered by the police in a gully next to an apartment complex; the victim had suffered numerous "chop" and stab wounds

to his head and neck, and one of his fingers was missing.

¶ 3 On the day the victim's body was found, nineteen-year-old Jordan Rowland was arrested on a wholly unrelated matter. In his pocket, however, police found the victim's missing finger.

¶ 4 The prosecution's theory was that Rowland killed the victim at defendant's behest. According to several teens in the street family, defendant had become angry with the victim because the victim was a snitch, owed him money, and would not stop commenting on defendant's Facebook posts. Three teens testified that defendant had placed a "green light" on the victim's head, meaning that defendant wanted the victim killed. A.L. related that he was initially supposed to carry out the "green light" but that he did not want to do it. K.M. related that she had been present when defendant ordered her boyfriend, Rowland, to kill the victim and to bring him evidence that the "job was done."

According to her, defendant threatened to kill her and Rowland if he did not comply; Rowland went to find the victim on the evening of the murder and told her he was going to "work everything out"; she saw Rowland the next morning without the victim; and Rowland told her that he had "taken care of" the victim and "had evidence that the job was done."

¶ 5 In addition to this evidence, the prosecution presented conversations recorded on defendant's Facebook account. In one of the posts from defendant's account, he threatened to "beat the shit outta" the victim and told him "its over for u." In another conversation between defendant and another teen, R.D., R.D. asked "[I]s there still a green light on [the victim's] head[?]," to which defendant responded, "hell yeah I need ur number asap."1

¶ 6 Defendant did not testify. He did, however, call two witnesses on his behalf: the lead detective, whom defense counsel questioned about the thoroughness of the investigation; and another police officer, who related that R.D. was a gang member. In closing argument, defense counsel asserted that the teens' testimony was unreliable, pointing out that their stories had changed over time and were inconsistent with each other. Counsel also noted that defendant had not communicated with Rowland following the murder and that A.L. was admittedly high on drugs when he was interviewed by police. Additionally, counsel asserted that if Rowland had killed the victim, it was on his own accord and not at defendant's direction. To support this theory, counsel argued that "everyone had a problem with [the victim]," pointing to evidence that the victim had been in several physical fights in the months before his death, including one with Rowland a few days before the murder.

¶ 7 The jury found defendant guilty of first degree (after deliberation) murder; solicitation to commit first degree (after deliberation) murder; and two crime of violence counts. The trial court merged the solicitation convictions into the murder conviction, disregarded, as surplusage, the crime of violence verdicts and sentenced defendant to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in the custody of the Department of Corrections.

II. Facebook Records

¶ 8 Defendant initially contends that the trial court erroneously admitted printouts of communications relating to the murder from his Facebook account. We are not persuaded.

¶ 9 "The admissibility of a computer printout is governed by the rules of relevancy, authentication, and hearsay." People v. Huehn, 53 P.3d 733, 736 (Colo. App. 2002). Defendant raises two of these admissibility issues—the Facebook printouts were not properly authenticated and constituted inadmissible hearsay.

¶ 10 We review all evidentiary rulings, including those regarding authentication, for an abuse of discretion. People v. Bernard, 2013 COA 79, ¶ 8, 305 P.3d 433. A court abuses its discretion if it misconstrues or misapplies the law or otherwise reaches a manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair result. See People v. Garcia, 169 P.3d 223, 226 (Colo. App. 2007).

A. Authentication

¶ 11 CRE 901 through 903 govern the authentication and identification of objects whose admission into evidence is sought by a party.

¶ 12 Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility of physical evidence that is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the evidence in question is what its proponent claims. CRE 901(a) ; see People v. Crespi, 155 P.3d 570, 574 (Colo. App. 2006) (trial court should admit physical evidence if a reasonable jury could decide that it is what the proponent claims it to be).

The burden to authenticate " ‘is not high—only a prima facie showing is required,’ and a district court's role is to serve as gatekeeper in assessing whether the proponent has offered a satisfactory foundation from which the jury could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic.’ " United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 133 (4th Cir. 2014) (applying rule identical to CRE 901 ) (quoting United States v. Vidacak, 553 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 2009) ).

¶ 14 A proponent of evidence may establish the authenticity of evidence in numerous ways. CRE 901(b)(1). In some circumstances, proffered evidence can be self-authenticating. See CRE 902.

¶ 15 Under CRE 902(11), extrinsic evidence of authenticity is not required with respect to a business record, as defined by CRE 803(6),

if [the record is] accompanied by an affidavit of its custodian or other qualified person ... certifying that the record
(a) was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;
(b) was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and
(c) was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.2

¶ 16 In the present case, the prosecutor produced an affidavit from a Facebook records custodian stating that

"[T]he records are basic subscriber information, IP logs, messages, photos, and expanded content for" the profile pages linked to defendant; and
"The records provided were made and kept by the automated systems of Facebook in the course of regularly conducted activity as a regular practice of Facebook. The records were made at or near the time the information was transmitted by the Facebook user."

¶ 17 In ruling that the Facebook printouts were self-authenticating business records under CRE 902(11), the court analogized the printouts to phone records, finding that

there is a record made on the computer that John Jones has sent Mary Smith a message on a particular day. And it does appear to the Court, just like in phone records, Facebook makes these records. That is[,] this text is reported on a computer program as part of the regularly conducted activity, and regular practice of Facebook. In fact, that is their business. Their business is to allow users to transmit their thoughts and have those thoughts saved, generally back and forth, as part of their business.

¶ 18 The other requirements of CRE 902(11) and 803(6) —i.e., that the record be made at or near the time of the matters recorded in it from information transmitted by a person with knowledge of those matters, and as a regular business practice—presented "more difficult" questions for the court. Ultimately, however, it concluded that

one cannot exclude a Facebook entry, even though the entry itself comes in and is made by an individual completely separate from Facebook, the business. An individual comes in and is recording their messages[,] typing their messages to go to someone else. Facebook is keeping a recorded, is keeping that recorded message as part of their Facebook site....

¶ 19 In Hassan, 742 F.3d at 132–35, the federal circuit court of appeals, like the trial court here, held that, because Facebook stores user information in the regular course of business, its records may be self-authenticated, in part at least, under Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) and 803(6). But the court in Hassan reached this conclusion without a detailed analysis of the requirements of Rules 902(11) and 803(6).

¶ 20 In People in Interest of R.D.H., 944 P.2d 660, 665 (Colo. App. 1997), a division of this court discussed the application of the business records hearsay exception to statements made, as here, by individuals who were not part of the business itself:

Statements by an outside party included within a business record are not necessarily granted the presumption of accuracy that attaches to statements made in the regular course of business because the outside party does not have a business duty to report the information. However, records containing such information are admissible when, as here, the information is provided as part of a business relationship between a business and an outsider and there is evidence that the business substantially relied upon the information contained in the records.

Id . at 665.

¶ 21 Here, even though an arguable business relationship exists between Facebook and its users, there was no evidence presented that Facebook substantially relies...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • State v. Buhl
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 14, 2016
    ...and private accounts [and] using privacy settings to restrict the information that is available to the public"); People v. Glover, 363 P.3d 736, 746 (Colo. App. 2015) (detective's Facebook testimony not result of "any specialized knowledge," but based on experience and "knowledge common amo......
  • State v. Buhl
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 21, 2016
    ...and private accounts [and] using privacy settings to restrict the information that is available to the public”); People v. Glover, 363 P.3d 736, 746 (Colo.App.2015) (detective's Facebook testimony not result of “any specialized knowledge,” but based on experience and “knowledge common among......
  • People ex rel. M.V.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • November 15, 2018
    ...is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the evidence in question is what its proponent claims. CRE 901 ; People v. Glover , 2015 COA 16, ¶ 12, 363 P.3d 736. ¶ 51 To authenticate a video recording, the proponent needs to establish that the recording is an accurate repro......
  • People v. Heisler
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 2017
    ...sufficient to support a finding that the [evidence] in question is what its proponent claims [it to be]." CRE 901(a) ; see also People v. Glover , 2015 COA 16, ¶ 12, 363 P.3d 736. "The burden to authenticate ‘is not high—only a prima facie showing is required....’ " Glover , ¶ 13 (quoting U......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Frequent Evidentiary Battles
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...help recreate the video for the D.A. Recreation was admitted at trial without objection . COLORADO People v. Glover , 2015 COA 16, ¶ 30, 363 P.3d 736, 742, cert. denied , 15SC277, 2015 WL 7987958 (Colo. Dec. 7, 2015). The lower court did not abuse its discretion in ruling the evidence was s......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT