Commonwealth v. Cleveland Jones.

── Commonwealth v. Cleveland Jones. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 25-P-238 COMMONWEALTH vs. CLEVELAND JONES. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The defendant challenges the order revoking his probation on the grounds that the judge (1) improperly considered evidence that had not been authenticated, (2) impermissibly excluded witness testimony, and (3) failed to make necessary written findings. We affirm. The defendant pleaded guilty in March 2023 to threatening to commit a crime (G. L. c. 275, § 2) and was sentenced to a term of probation with conditions including staying away from the victim. By June the defendant was alleged to be in violation of his probation terms because he had engaged in multiple attempts to contact the victim. Because this appeal focuses on the evidence adduced at the probation revocation hearing, we discuss those facts in combination with the applicable legal principles. "The decision to revoke probation, based on a violation shown by a preponderance of the evidence, lies within the discretion of the judge." Commonwealth v. Sargent, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 27, 29 (2020). "[W]e uphold a judge's finding of a probation violation if it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence." Id. The defendant first contends that the judge erred in admitting six exhibits, screen shots from the victim's cell phone of messages and calls via Instagram (a social media site), because the evidence did not establish that they were authentic and came from the defendant. In addressing this argument, we ask whether the evidence established that these exhibits were reliable. See Sargent, 98 Mass. App. Ct. at 30. It did. "The requirement of authentication . . . as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Commonwealth v. Purdy, 459 Mass. 442, 447 (2011), quoting Mass. G. Evid. § 901(a) (2011). Formal authentication procedures need not be followed in a probation revocation hearing, see Sargent, 98 Mass. App. Ct. at 27, where "standard evidentiary rules do not apply." Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 117 (1990). Instead, the "preeminent 2 concern with respect to the evidence presented and considered at revocation proceedings is its reliability." Sargent, supra at 30, quoting Commonwealth v. Thissell, 457 Mass. 191, 196 (2010). Here, the victim testified that she had known the defendant since May 2019 and that she had been in a relationship with him between March and December of 2022. They had followed each other on Instagram since 2022; she recited part of his Instagram username from memory; and, when shown his Instagram page, she identified it by the username, by photographs of him, and from having followed that account since 2022. The judge, who could see the defendant, was also able to examine t