Text Messages as Evidence
An estimated three billion human beings own cell phones, sending more than a trillion text messages every year. Not all of these messages are benign.Sometimes, when an accused is arrested, his/her cellphone is searched, either incident to arrest or under the authority of a search warrant (or both). And, as you might expect, the messages and pictures on that cellphone sometimes end up as Crown evidence in a criminal trial.Here’s how. Are Text Messages Hearsay? As with all admissibility questions, the first issue to be addressed is the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be tendered. Text messages are documents containing out-of-court statements. However — No evidence is hearsay on its face. Admissibility depends on the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be admitted. Evidence is hearsay — and presumptively inadmissible — if it is tendered to make proof of the truth of its contents. R. v. Baldree, 2013 SCC 35 (CanLII), at para. 36. So then, text messages are not necessarily hearsay: it depends on the purpose for which they are tendered. Text messages can also be admitted, for instance, as circumstantial evidence under the documents in possession rule,for the non-hearsay purpose of connecting the accused to a location, transactions, or people, or demonstrating knowledge, state of mind and so on. But where that occurs, the texts may not be used to prove the truth of their contents. R. v. Bridgman, 2017 ONCA 940, at para. 76. Out-going text messages Hearsay is presumptively inadmissible because of the accepted dangers arising from this type of evidence. The presumption can be displaced only where the evidence fits within a categorical exception to the rule or satisfies the principled exception: R. v. Khelawon,