a one-month period surrounding the December 23, 2012 robbery: December 16,
2012 to January 10, 2013. The name listed for the number’s account was
Shalonda Benjamin, Gardner’s mother, but the subscriber was listed as Gardner.
Six days before the robbery, texts from the number discussed having and
shooting an Uzi, which is a longer, automatic handgun. A text message from the
number sent approximately one hour before the robbery stated, “im fina hit a
lick,” which meant the person sending the text was about to commit a robbery.
At trial, the State introduced the text messages into evidence, and Gardner
objected on the bases that they had not been sufficiently connected to him such
that they were relevant and were unfairly prejudicial. The trial court overruled
Gardner’s objections and admitted the cell-phone records into evidence.
Gardner’s sole argument on appeal is that the cell-phone records were
erroneously admitted because they were not relevant and unfairly prejudicial.
Gardner’s relevance complaint is based on his assertion that the cell-phone
number was insufficiently connected to him; thus, the texts were not probative to
any fact of consequence. See Tex. R. Evid. 401. Although Gardner does not
specifically attack whether the records were properly authenticated under rule
901, the issue of authentication necessarily arises when the relevancy of the
evidence depends upon its connection to a particular person. See Tex. R. Evid.
901(a); Dering v. State, No. 11-13-00076-CR, 2015 WL 1472013, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Eastland Mar. 26, 2015, no pet.); Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545,
548–49 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.). Authentication is a condition