Exemption of Machine-Generated Raw Data from Hearsay and Confrontation Clause Requirements

Introduction

State v. Lester, 380 N.C. 1 (2025), delivered by Justice Earls of the North Carolina Supreme Court, marks a significant clarification of the interplay between the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rules as applied to modern, machine-generated evidence. In this case, the defendant, Andre Eugene Lester, was convicted of multiple sex offenses involving a minor based in part on call detail records obtained from Verizon. The Court of Appeals had vacated his conviction on Confrontation Clause and hearsay grounds, treating the call records and a filtered summary spreadsheet as testimonial hearsay. Upon discretionary review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that truly machine-generated raw data are neither hearsay nor testimonial and therefore fall outside the Clause’s ambit.

Key parties:

• State of North Carolina (Appellant) – represented by the Attorney General’s Office.
• Andre Eugene Lester (Appellee/Defendant) – represented by private counsel.

Core legal issue: Does the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule bar admission of call detail records and a derived spreadsheet when both are produced entirely by computer systems without human input?

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously held that:

• “Machine-generated raw data, if truly machine-generated, are neither hearsay nor testimonial.” (Citing State v. Ortiz-Zape, 367 N.C. 1 (2013)).
• The Confrontation Clause protects only testimonial statements made by humans outside the courtroom. Computer-generated logs—being the product of automated systems—do not constitute “statements” by persons and thus escape Confrontation Clause constraints.
• Exhibits #2 (the Verizon call detail records) and #3 (the PenLink-filtered spreadsheet) were properly admitted if authenticated under Rule 901, because they derived from unfiltered, machine-captured data, not human assertions or interpretations.

The court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded for further proceedings on Lester’s remaining arguments.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Crawford v. Washington (541 U.S. 36 (2004)) – Established that the Confrontation Clause reaches testimonial statements of human witnesses and reaffirmed the bedrock need for cross-examination of such witnesses.
• Davis v. Washington (547 U.S. 813 (2006)) – Introduced the “primary purpose” test to distinguish testimonial from non-testimonial hearsay.
• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (557 U.S. 305 (2009)) – Held forensic certificates to be testimonial because they were the “functional equivalent” of live testimony.
• Michigan v. Bryant (562 U.S. 344 (2011)) – Emphasized unavailability plus opportunity for cross-examination as triggers for the Clause’s protection of testimonial evidence.
• State v. Ortiz-Zape (367 N.C. 1 (2013)) – Recognized that raw, machine-generated data are not hearsay or testimonial since no person “asserted” them.
• Bullcoming v. New Mexico (564 U.S. 647 (2011)) – Delineated that human interpretations of machine data (e.g., lab reports) are testimonial, unlike the raw data themselves.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in several interlocking steps:

1. Definition of Hearsay and Testimonial Hearsay – Hearsay requires a human declarant’s statement offered for its truth (Rule 801(c)). The Confrontation Clause targets only testimonial hearsay—statements by persons intended to establish or prove facts for prosecution.
2. Nature of Machine-Generated Data – Data automatically logged by computers constitute “self-generated records” of mechanical processes, lacking human intent, memory or veracity concerns. Such data are functionally akin to photographs or flight-recorder outputs.
3. Exemption from Confrontation Clause – Because machines are not “persons,” their raw output cannot be testimonial statements. There is no cross-examination need where there is no human declarant whose reliability must be tested.
4. Distinction from Human Interpretations – When an analyst exercises independent judgment on machine data (e.g., forensic chemist’s certification), that report is testimonial and subject to confrontation requirements. The pure output itself remains non-testimonial.
5. Authentication Requirement – While the Confrontation Clause does not bar machine-generated data, standard authentication under Rule 901 still applies to prove the data’s origin and integrity.

3. Impact

State v. Lester establishes a clear North Carolina precedent:

• Law enforcement may rely on unfiltered call records, GPS logs, CCTV metadata and similar raw digital outputs without triggering the Confrontation Clause, so long as they can be authenticated.
• Prosecutors must still authenticate computer-generated exhibits and distinguish them from human-generated or human-interpreted records to avoid hearsay pitfalls.
• Defense counsel must focus their Confrontation Clause challenges on testimonial human statements or expert interpretations, not the underlying machine logs.
• Future cases will adopt a two-track approach to electronic evidence: genuine machine data exempt from testimonial scrutiny, versus human-authored or machine-stored statements subject to hearsay and confrontation rules.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Confrontation Clause: A Sixth Amendment guarantee that a defendant can cross-examine witnesses who provide out-of-court testimonial evidence.
• Hearsay: An out-of-court human statement offered for the truth of its content. Machines cannot “speak,” so their raw logs are not hearsay.
• Testimonial vs. Non-Testimonial: Testimonial statements are made with the primary purpose of preserving evidence for prosecution; non-testimonial statements arise in ongoing emergencies or mechanical processes.
• Machine-Generated Data: Information automatically recorded by software or hardware (e.g., phone call records, server logs) without human intervention.
• Authentication (Rule 901): A foundational requirement to show evidence is what it claims to be, such as an officer’s chain-of-custody testimony for computer logs.

Conclusion

State v. Lester crystallizes the principle that raw, machine-generated data are neither hearsay nor testimonial and thus fall beyond the scope of the Confrontation Clause. While preserving robust protections for testimonial human statements and expert interpretations, the decision acknowledges that modern technologies produce wholly mechanical records that courts and litigants can freely employ once properly authenticated. This landmark ruling will guide North Carolina practitioners and courts in navigating the ever-expanding landscape of digital evidence with clarity and consistency.