State v. Pitcher

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed Chad Brandon Pitcher’s convictions for first-degree manslaughter, unlawful use of a weapon, and felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that Pitcher lacked a protected privacy interest or reasonable expectation of privacy in copies of Facebook messages located in the victim’s account records, and it upheld admission of those records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The opinion also addresses the sufficiency of foundational testimony concerning Meta’s recordkeeping practices.

Holdings

1. A sender does not retain a protected privacy interest under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution or a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in copies of messages delivered to and stored in the recipient's Facebook account records when the sender lacks access to or control over that account.
2. Facebook account records may be admitted under OEC 803(6) when an appropriately trained records custodian with personal knowledge of the company's record-making and record-keeping practices establishes the required foundation, even if the custodian did not create the specific records and the business no longer retains the original copy.
3. Any assumed violation of defendant's Article I, section 11, right to counsel was harmless because there was little likelihood that admission of the brief statement affected the jury's verdict.
4. The trial court did not plainly err by failing to define 'initial aggressor' in the self-defense instructions absent a request for a supplemental instruction.
5. The challenged prosecutorial statements, even assuming they were individually or collectively improper, did not require reversal because defendant failed to establish that they were incurably prejudicial or denied him a fair trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant had a protected privacy interest under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution or a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in copies of Facebook messages he sent to R that were stored in R's Facebook account records.
2. Whether the trial court properly admitted Facebook account records under Oregon Evidence Code 803(6), including whether a records custodian who began employment shortly after the records were generated could establish the foundation and whether the absence of Meta's original records rendered the copies untrustworthy.
3. Whether any violation of defendant's Article I, section 11, right to counsel required suppression of his custodial statement.
4. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to define 'initial aggressor' in the self-defense jury instructions.
5. Whether allegedly improper prosecutorial closing arguments were obviously improper and incurably prejudicial so as to deny defendant a fair trial.

Disposition

affirmed