Aggravated stalking; MCL 750.411i; Personal protection order (PPO) violation; Sufficiency of the evidence; Authentication; MRE 901; Voice identification; MRE 901(b)(5); Text messages; Social media posts; “Unconsented contact”; Electronic communications

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s aggravated-stalking conviction and that her authentication argument did not undermine the sufficiency analysis. Defendant was convicted after she repeatedly called, texted, and posted about the complainant while a PPO was in effect. The court first held that defendant’s authentication argument was “misplaced” because evidence may be authenticated by testimony from a witness with knowledge, and a voice may be authenticated by someone who has heard it before. The complainant testified about why she believed the communications came from defendant, including her familiarity with defendant’s voice and the consistency between the texts and defendant’s social media activity. The court also noted that sufficiency review considers “‘all of the evidence admitted by the trial court,’” even if a defendant claims some evidence was erroneously admitted. The court next held that the evidence was “more than sufficient” to prove aggravated stalking. The complainant received numerous threatening texts, multiple phone calls, and social media posts identifying her by name and prompting third parties to contact her. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence showed a “willful pattern of repeated, unconsented, and menacing contact, in violation of MCL 750.411i” and the PPO. Affirmed.