Blog

The Takeaway

A recent Missouri appellate court ruling[i] reaffirmed key points about using cell phone calls and text messages as evidence:

• Authenticating text messages should not be unduly burdensome.
• A cell phone extraction report alone is insufficient proof of a text’s authorship.
• To establish who sent a text, additional supporting evidence may be needed, including circumstantial details such as the timing of calls and texts.

Introduction

Litigation can be challenging, especially in the face of ever-changing technology. The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District recently issued an opinion restating and applying the standard for admitting text messages into evidence.

Case Background

Jeffery Lumzy lived with A.W. and her three children in the same neighborhood as D.P., with whom Lumzy also had three children. Lumzy, ED112519 at 2.

Evidence submitted at trial showed this timeline of events on the morning of Dec. 29, 2022:

• D.P. sent Lumzy a text message indicating she was “washing [her] hands of him” and would “rather deal with child support.”
• Victim (D.P.’s friend) visited D.P. at her apartment.
• Lumzy entered D.P.’s apartment—uninvited—through the unlocked front door.
• D.P. ordered him to leave, and Lumzy left the apartment.
• About 10 minutes later, Lumzy—holding a gun—entered D.P.’s apartment via the back door.
• Lumzy flashed the gun at D.P. and shot Victim in the chest.
• D.P. tried to call 911, but Lumzy took her phone.
• Lumzy ordered D.P. to find clothes for the children because they were all leaving.
• According to D.P.’s trial testimony, while she was getting the children ready, Lumzy called someone from his phone.
• Lumzy took D.P.’s car keys and took her and the children to her rental car, which was across the parking lot.
• Lumzy purportedly sent two texts to A.W., indicating, “I’m about to go to jail for a long time” and “Call me 911.”
• An apartment maintenance technician called 911 because he thought Lumzy was kidnapping the children.
• Maintenance technician approached Lumzy, asking what was going on.
• D.P. asked maintenance technician for help, stating Lumzy had shot her friend.
• Lumzy entered D.P.’s car with her phone and drove off toward A.W.’s residence.

A jury in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City convicted Lumzy of murder in the first degree, armed criminal action, burglary in the first degree, unlawful possession of a firearm, and stealing a motor vehicle.

Lumzy appealed. In two of his points, he argued that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence incoming and outgoing text messages without laying proper foundation (e.g. authorship had not been proven). Lumzy, ED112519 at 7.

Appellate Court Ruling

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court had not erred in admitting the text messages. Id. at 12, 15.

The Court explained that a text message can be authenticated by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. at 8. For example, the text message’s author can admit that he or she wrote the message, or there may be distinctive features about a text message that can identify the author. Id., citing State v. Hein, 553 S.W.3d 893, 897 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) and State v. Harris, 358 S.W.3d 172, 175 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011).

To properly authenticate a text message, the proponent must establish not merely ownership of the phone but authorship of the text message. Simply confirming the phone number belonged to a particular person is not enough . Id., citing State v. Francis, 455 S.W.3d 56, 71 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). The proponent must present “some proof” that the alleged sender actually wrote the message. Lumzy, ED112519 at 9.

The Court initially noted that a Cellebrite report (which provides a record of a communication’s content) can provide sufficient proof of authentication of the phone’s usage or location data, but by itself, it doesn’t establish who wrote the text message. Id. at 9-10, citing Harris, 358 S.W.3d at 175. However, in this case the Court of Appeals found that the record included “some proof” of authorship beyond the Cellebrite report. Id. at 10. D.P’s prior testimony that she witnessed Lumzy speaking to someone on the phone minutes after the shooting (between 11:45 a.m. and before 1:30 p.m.) along with the Detective’s testimony that the Cellebrite report indicated Lumzy’s two text messages were sent at 12:59 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. and that a phone call was made from Lumzy’s phone to A.W.’s phone at 1:02 p.m. constituted “some proof” that Lumzy authored the Outgoing Texts (at the time the trial court ruled on the issue). Id. at 10-11.

The Court of Appeals also noted that, although not required at the time of admission, Lumzy later confirmed his authorship through his own testimony. Id. at 11-12.

The Court also found that the State presented circumstantial evidence of “some proof” that the Incoming Text was authored by D.P. through her trial testimony that she’d sent Lumzy a message with the same content as the text that was admitted into evidence. Id. at 12. The Court noted that even though D.P.’s testimony did not repeat the message verbatim, her testimony still provided enough detail to conclude she was the author and to confirm the content’s accuracy. Id. Furthermore, the Court noted that although not required to establish authentication, Lumzy’s own testimony that he’d received an incoming text from D.P. further resolved any dispute over ownership.

[i] State of Missouri v. Jeffery Lumzy, No. ED112519 (Mo. App. May 6, 2025).