Admissibility of evidence — text messages — hearsay — Evidence Act 2006, s 4 — Payne v R [2012] NZCA 529 — Singh v R [2017] NZCA 136 — Dyer v R [2014] NZCA 34 — Lal v R [2012] NZCA 20. The defendant faced a charge of burglary, allegedly committed together with his half-brother. The half-brother had pleaded guilty to the burglary but had made no statements implicating the defendant in the burglary and was not due to give evidence at the defendant's trial. The Crown sought to lead as evidence a series of text messages, that it alleged were sent between the defendant and his half-brother. The Crown argued that because the texts were sent directly to and from the defendant, they were admissible as evidence. Further, the texts provided context to the lead-up to the offending. The defendant denied having sent or received the messages in question, and argued that in any case some of them were hearsay and that to admit them would be unfairly prejudicial. The Court agreed that one of the texts, in which the half-brother said that he "didn't wanna come too early", should be excluded: the half-brother was not due to give evidence in the defendant's trial and to admit the text would be to invite the jury to speculate as to its meaning. Another text from the half-brother reading "on my way" was also inadmissible: the defendant had not replied, so to admit the text would be to attribute the half-brother's ideas to the defendant. With regards to the rest of the texts, the Court accepted that it had been the defendant who had sent them; therefore, as the defendant was a party to the communications, they were admissible against him. Judgment Date: 25 May 2021.