The Facebook Fight and the Doctor’s Report
In a Hamilton County civil assault trial, plaintiff Owen claims defendant Ray punched him from behind at a party. Ray says Owen swung first. Owen offers four items. First, a screenshot of a Facebook post from Ray’s account two days after the fight: “Some people need to learn respect.” Ray says the account was hacked, but the profile has his photo and high-school nickname. Second, Owen’s emergency-room record, which states: “Patient reports he was punched from behind by a male at a party.” Third, Owen’s friend Tess, who was not present at the punch, proposes to testify that another guest told her, “Ray swung first.” Fourth, Dr. Patel, a physician, will opine that Owen’s jaw fracture is consistent with a punch from behind, based on the ER record and a physical exam. Ray objects on authentication, hearsay, and expert-basis grounds.
1. Is Ray’s Facebook post admissible over authentication and hearsay objections?
Read the worked answer
Authentication requires evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find that the post is what it purports to be-Ray’s statement. Under Evid.R. 901, the proponent may use a witness with knowledge, or circumstantial evidence such as the account’s profile photo, nickname, and content. Ray’s hacking claim goes to weight, not automatic exclusion, unless it defeats the foundation. The post is Ray’s own statement offered against him, so it is a party-opponent admission under Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(a), not hearsay. Relevance is the closer question: “Some people need to learn respect” is ambiguous, but it can be relevant to Ray’s state of mind, motive, or consciousness of guilt after the fight. The judge should admit it if the foundation is sufficient and if Evid.R. 403 does not show unfair prejudice substantially outweighing probative value.
2. Is the emergency-room statement “patient reports he was punched from behind by a male at a party” admissible?
Read the worked answer
The record can come in as a business record under Evid.R. 803(6) if a custodian or qualified witness lays the foundation. The statement inside it is hearsay and needs its own exception. Evid.R. 803(4) admits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment and reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. Statements about the cause and mechanism of injury are often pertinent-especially “punched from behind”-because they help the physician understand the injury. But statements identifying the attacker or assigning fault generally are not pertinent. The phrase “by a male at a party” may be redacted if it goes beyond treatment; “punched from behind” is likely admissible. The court should admit the record with a limiting or redaction approach and instruct the jury on its use.
3. How should the court rule on Tess’s testimony and Dr. Patel’s opinion?
Read the worked answer
Tess’s testimony is hearsay: she would recount an out-of-court statement by another guest to prove that Ray swung first. No exception clearly applies. It is not an excited utterance without evidence that the guest was under the stress of a startling event, and it is not a present sense impression without timing and personal perception. It is also not a party admission because the guest is not Ray. The court should exclude it. Dr. Patel’s opinion is different. Under Evid.R. 702, a qualified physician may give a causation opinion, and under Evid.R. 703 an expert may rely on facts or data reasonably relied on by experts in the field, including medical records. Dr. Patel may not simply read the records to the jury as hearsay, but he can explain the basis and give an opinion. Ray may cross-examine on the basis and call his own expert. The court should allow the opinion with appropriate foundation.