The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Officer Gutierrez testified that a cell phone was found in D's front pocket with 'pay-owes' in it. D raised a lack of foundation objection. The trial court sustained the objection. P elicited testimony from Officer Gutierrez regarding his training and experience in looking for evidence on cell phones. The Officer testified he found individual names and next to each would be a dollar amount like $20, $30 with a dollar sign. The Officer testified that the phone was currently in the evidence warehouse. D objected on hearsay grounds but the court overruled the objections. On cross-examination, D clarified that although the cell phone had not been brought to trial or entered into evidence, it could be requested and accessed from evidence storage. On appeal, D claims the contents of the cell phone should have been excluded as hearsay, and as a violation of the secondary evidence rule.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.