State v. Rupp

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction for two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine, affirmed; judgment of conviction for possession of a paraphernalia (misdemeanor), affirmed; and case remanded for correction of misdemeanor sentence.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kale D. Gans, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

GRATTON, Chief Judge

Jaime Lynn Rupp appeals from her judgment of conviction. We affirm the district court's judgment of conviction. However, we vacate the sentence for misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia and remand for correction of that sentence.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A detective obtained Rupp's phone number from an informant. The detective and Rupp messaged each other using an encrypted messaging application called "Signal." The detective arranged to buy two ounces of methamphetamine from Rupp. Rupp indicated that she would be driving a blue Volvo, and they agreed to meet in a parking lot. The detective reviewed Rupp's photograph before the meeting and observed the same person emerge from the blue Volvo. During the physical exchange of methamphetamine on January 27, 2021, Rupp and the detective discussed

future sales, including four ounces for sixteen hundred dollars. The detective testified to these facts, and an audio recording of the conversation was admitted at trial. The detective also identified Rupp at trial.

The detective testified that he again used the messaging application, Signal, and arranged to buy two ounces of methamphetamine from Rupp on February 17, 2021, at a hotel. The proposed sale did not take place. Instead, after surveilling the hotel and obtaining warrants, Rupp was taken into custody after she and another woman exited the hotel and walked toward Rupp's Volvo. During a search incident to Rupp's arrest, officers found over four hundred grams of methamphetamine in Rupp's car. Law enforcement also discovered drug paraphernalia in Rupp's car and on her person. The State charged Rupp with two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code §§ 37-2732B(a)(4)(C), 37-2732B(a)(4)(A) and, in a separate case, the State charged Rupp with misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A(1).^[1]The two cases were consolidated and proceeded to trial.

At trial, over objection, the State introduced screenshots of conversations between the detective and Rupp. The screenshots detailed the controlled drug buy in January. The district court also permitted testimony from a detective regarding a phone call Rupp made from jail following her arrest in which she discussed "cleaning" four rooms in McCall (a location previously discussed by the detective and Rupp) for "16." The jury found Rupp guilty of two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Rupp was sentenced to consecutive, unified terms of thirty-five years with fifteen years determinate for the trafficking counts and 457 days credit for time served on the paraphernalia charge. Rupp appeals.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The appellate courts employ a mixed standard of review on challenges to evidentiary rulings in which relevance is a matter of law that is subject to free review and other challenges to admissibility are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. McGrath, 169 Idaho 656, 662, 501 P.3d 346, 352 (2021). When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion;

(3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018).

III.

ANALYSIS

Rupp advances several claims of error on appeal. First, Rupp argues that the district court erred in admitting the screenshots from the Signal application. Second, Rupp contends that the district court erred in refusing to allow her to ask the detective about favorable treatment the informant received. Third, Rupp asserts that the district court erred in allowing testimony from a detective regarding her call from jail. Rupp further argues that the cumulative error from these evidentiary rulings requires vacation of her convictions. Finally, Rupp claims that the district court erred in imposing sentence on the misdemeanor paraphernalia count.

A. Signal Screenshots

Rupp argues the district court erred by admitting screenshots of her messages with the detective on the Signal application. Rupp claims there was insufficient foundation to explain how the messaging app generated her name into the detective's phone. The State argues the detective testified that the screenshots accurately depicted what they purportedly showed.

The decision whether to admit evidence at trial is generally within the province of the trial court. A trial court's determination that evidence is supported by a proper foundation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bradley, 158 Idaho 66, 69, 343 P.3d 508, 511 (Ct. App. 2015). Therefore, a trial court's determination as to the admission of evidence at trial will only be reversed where there has been an abuse of that discretion. Id. The requirement of authentication or identification of evidence is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Idaho Rule of Evidence 901(a). Rule 901(b) contains an illustrative, but not exhaustive, list of suggested methods of identification. State v. Koch, 157 Idaho 89, 96, 334 P.3d 280, 287 (2014). Relevant to this case, foundation can be established through testimony of a witness with knowledge "that an item is what it is claimed to be" or examination of the evidence's "distinctive characteristics and the like," including "appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances." I.R.E. 901(b)(1), (b)(4).

Photographs are generally admissible where the witness who identifies them testifies that they correctly portray relevant scenes or objects. Shea v. Kevic Corp., 156 Idaho 540, 546, 328 P.3d 520, 526 (2014). The Idaho Supreme Court has held that establishing the identity of the author of a text message or email by use of corroborating evidence is critical to satisfying the authentication requirement for admissibility. Koch, 157 Idaho at 97, 334 P.3d at 288. Thus, the proponent of the evidence must explain the purpose for which the text message is being offered and provide sufficient direct or circumstantial corroborating evidence of authorship to authenticate the text message as a condition precedent to its admission. Id.

On appeal, Rupp argues there was insufficient foundation to establish she was the sender in the exchanged Signal messages. The evidence presented at trial demonstrated the detective communicated with a person via a phone number provided by a third party. The detectives were led to believe this person was Rupp. When the conversation moved over to Signal, the detective testified that he did not manually enter Rupp's name into the phone; instead, the name, Jamie Rupp, was auto-populated by the Signal application. The detective and the sender then coordinated the details of the drug buy. The detective arrived at the original location, changed the location, and communicated the change through Signal. The detective then met with the sender at the revised location who matched the information law enforcement had about Rupp. The State asserts it provided ample circumstantial and corroborating evidence and that screenshot authentication is akin to photographs. See I.R.E. 901(b)(6); Koch, 157 Idaho at 98, 334 P.3d at 289. We agree. In addition, the detective had already testified to the contents of the Signal conversation without objection. Thus, the district court properly admitted the screenshot exhibits because the detective affirmed the printouts of the screenshots accurately reflected the conversation he had with Rupp and that was sufficient foundation to authenticate the screenshot exhibits.

Rupp claims the detective never testified how Signal auto-populated her name. However, Rupp cites no authority...