Can text messages be used in trial as evidence?

Why did you hit “send” while you were angry!

Something that is in writing can be helpful or hurtful to your case in trial. How many times have you wrote an email or text while you were angry? And then you sent it while you were mad.

As a trial lawyer, I always see written communications as if they’re read into the record as evidence at a trial. How will the jury or judge hear this evidence? And how will they react to it? And how may a lawyer try to use your words against you…maybe for the truth of the words but also for outside meaning, like to prove your state of mind?

This also brings up the next question, which is how does a text message get admitted into evidence.

The Court of Appeal of California recently decided a case discussing text messages. This case is Adoption of X.D., cited as 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 608.

Let’s dive into what this case is about.

What happened in Adoption of X.D.?

This is an adoption-family case, where the Father wrote a text threatening to killer the Mother and their unborn child.

The text was saved by the sister of the Father, and the Court had these facts about the text before it:

“The contents of [the text] contained identifying information consistent with [the Father’s] own testimony and other admitted evidence. For instance, by his own admission, the telephone number in the screenshot belonged to [the Father]. At both his…deposition and at trial, he verified the phone number…was his. During trial…the court verified with both parties’ counsel that the telephone number in the screenshots had been authenticated as [the Father’s]. The telephone number was saved with the contact name “Lil Big Brother”—which [the Father] himself testified “[d]efinitely my little sister calls me that sometimes.”

The Mother sought to introduce this text at trial and the Trial Court excluded this evidence.

The Mother appealed, which brings us to this case.

How do you introduce evidence at trial?

First, let’s discuss some general laws per the California Evidence code about how to lay foundation and authenticate evidence at trial, for a text message.

Foundation for a text or email may be laid through direct or circumstantial evidence. The Court here says this: “[l]ike any other material fact, the authenticity of a document may be established by circumstantial evidence.”

And sometimes, evidence of writings can be self-authenticating.

Per California Evidence Code 1421, the law is this, “[a] writing may be authenticated by evidence that the writing refers to or states matters that are unlikely to be known to anyone other than the person who is claimed by the proponent of the evidence to be the author of the writing.”

But…does the person who wrote the text need to authenticate the text?

Nope. Another person can authenticate the text, as the Court specifically says this:

“The author’s testimony is not required to authenticate a document.”

Doesn’t hearsay apply also?

Yes, it can. However, the Court here held hearsay exceptions applied to this this text message, as being a statement made by a witness who is a party opponent.

Also, the text “was offered for the effect it had on [the Mother’s] state of mind and her conduct regarding communication with” the Father about their unborn child.

Here, the Father had one last fadeaway shot:
The Father also argued admitting the text message would be too prejudicial, per California Evidence Code 352.

First, the Court says “[n]ot every damaging piece of evidence is prejudicial under the Evidence Code.”

The law on prejudice is this: “Prejudice as contemplated by Evidence Code section 352 ‘is not so sweeping as to include any evidence the opponent finds inconvenient. Evidence is not prejudicial, as that term is used in [an Evidence Code] section 352 context, merely because it undermines the opponent’s position or shores up that of the proponent. The ability to do so is what makes evidence relevant. The code speaks in terms of undue prejudice.’”

So, what exactly is “prejudice”?

“‘The “prejudice” referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.’”

Evidence can be prejudicial. It just cannot be “unduly prejudicial.”

In the end, for this case:

The text message in this case was just one part of this appeal. The entire case also deal with the Father trying to adopt his child, against the Mother’s wishes and arguments.

I don’t do family law, but our firm has a team of fantastic family trial lawyers that do. So, I’ll leave the family law to them and I’ll focus my discussion on admitting evidence at trial, as that applies to civil cases.

In the end for this case, the Court reverses the Trial Court’s finding the Father was the actual father…and directed the trial court, on remand, to enter an order permitting an adoption to proceed.