State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Janaya Neither, Appellant.

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: ED112866
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED112866 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the City of St. Louis v. ) Cause No. 2122-CR01323-01 ) JANAYA NEITHER, ) Honorable Katherine M. Fowler ) Appellant. ) Filed: September 23, 2025

Introduction

Janaya Neither (Appellant) appeals from the judgment and sentence after a guilty

jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Count 1) and armed criminal action (Count II).

Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction, but

she argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain social media posts

without an adequate foundation, resulting in prejudice. We affirm.

Background

The State charged Appellant with the class A felony of assault in the first degree

and the unclassified felony of armed criminal action (ACA) for causing serious physical

injury to T.G. (Victim) by slashing her with a knife.

At trial, the State adduced the following evidence. In August of 2021, Victim

traveled to St. Louis to spend the weekend working at an exotic dance club (the club). Victim and Appellant, who was also in town to work as a dancer at the same club, agreed

that Appellant would share Victim’s Airbnb apartment. On their second evening in St.

Louis, Victim went to the club while Appellant and her friend (Friend) went to dance at a

private party. In the early hours of August 7, 2021, Appellant returned to the club, and at

this point, the testimonies of Victim and Appellant diverged.

Victim testified to the following. When Appellant arrived at the club, she was

belligerent and trying to fight other dancers. Victim attempted to calm Appellant down,

which led to a verbal altercation and they each shoved the other. Although Victim wanted

to avoid a physical fight, they continued to spar verbally until the club’s security separated

them and the owner of the club, known as T, ordered Appellant to leave. Victim then

returned to her Airbnb apartment and was sitting on her bed when she heard Appellant and

Friend enter the apartment, calling her name. Appellant came into Victim’s bedroom and

grabbed her by her hair, pulling her onto the floor, where Appellant slashed Victim’s arms,

chest, face, and scalp 15 times with a knife. Victim identified Appellant to law enforcement

and gave them Appellant’s Instagram account name.

By contrast, Appellant presented a theory of self-defense at trial, testifying to the

following events. When Appellant arrived at the club, Victim was rude and initiated an

argument, during which Victim threatened Appellant with scissors. When Appellant

returned to the Airbnb with Friend at the end of the night to collect her belongings,

Appellant grabbed a knife from the kitchen and placed it in her waistband, stating she

planned to hold it “just in case” she had to use it, recalling the earlier incident at the club.

In the apartment, Appellant confronted Victim verbally, which Victim escalated to a

physical fight. Victim started choking Appellant from behind, at which point Appellant

2 took the knife from her waistband and stabbed Victim to get her to let go. Appellant stated

that she only stabbed Victim while Victim was behind her, strangling her. When Victim

released Appellant, Appellant left the apartment, and she agreed she did not call the police,

although she realized that Victim was injured.

During its cross-examination of Appellant, the State sought to admit three exhibits

of posts from an Instagram account, allegedly Appellant’s. Exhibit 92 was a screenshot of

an Instagram profile for an account with the name “Bonnita_Applebum_.” Exhibit 93 was

a screenshot of a post from that Instagram account with the words: “T better be glad he

blocked me from [the club], I got something for his bitch ass,” and “Hurry up with the case

shit so I can pay him a visit.” Exhibit 94 was another screenshot from the same account of

an image of a police report with the words “defendant[’]s copy” stamped on it. Both

Exhibits 93 and 94 had the profile name “Bonnita_Applebum_” at the top, and they

displayed the screenshots of the posts had been taken at 10:52 1 and that the posts had been

visible for “2h” at that time.

Appellant objected to the admission of Exhibits 93 and 94 for lack of foundation.

The trial court allowed the State to question Appellant about the Instagram account and the

posts to establish a foundation. Appellant admitted that the Instagram account with the

profile name Bonnita_Applebum_ was her account, and she denied that anyone else had

access to her account. Although she testified that she did not recall authoring either of the

posts, she acknowledged the posts originated from her account, over which she had

exclusive control. The trial court admitted the exhibits, finding Appellant authenticated

the posts when she admitted they came from her account, to which no one else had access.

1 The exhibits did not specify whether it was 10:52 a.m. or p.m.

3 After the trial court admitted the exhibits, Appellant testified on redirect examination that

“at some point” she had deleted her Instagram account with the name Bonnita_Applebum_,

and someone else created a new account using the identical username. Appellant suggested

that anyone could have made posts that appeared to come from her account.

The jury convicted Appellant of the lesser offense of assault in the second degree

and ACA. The trial court sentenced her to a term of seven years in the Missouri Department

of Corrections for the assault count and a term of five years for the ACA count, ordered to

run consecutively, for a total sentence of twelve years’ imprisonment. This appeal follows.

Discussion

In her sole point on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in

admitting Exhibit 93 and Exhibit 94, social media posts made on Appellant’s Instagram

account, because there was an inadequate foundation to admit the exhibits, and the

admission of this evidence resulted in prejudice. We disagree.

Trial courts have broad leeway in choosing to admit or deny evidence, and we

review a trial court’s decision for an abuse of that discretion. State v. Wilson, 602 S.W.3d

328, 332 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). Likewise, trial courts have broad discretion to determine

whether a party has laid a sufficient foundation to admit evidence. State v. Lumzy, 713

S.W.3d 729, 738 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025). We review the admission of evidence for

prejudice, not error alone, and will reverse only if the error was so prejudicial it deprived

the defendant of a fair trial. Id. An error is prejudicial only if there is a reasonable

probability that, but for the trial court’s error, the outcome of the trial would have been

different. Id.

4 Generally, before a trial court may properly admit a writing, the party seeking to

admit the evidence must lay a proper foundation for it, establishing the authenticity of the

document by proving that the document is what it purports to be. State v. Hein, 553 S.W.3d

893, 897 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). These foundational requirements apply equally to online

and social media messages. Wilson, 602 S.W.3d at 332; State v. Snow, 437 S.W.3d 396,

402 n.4 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014) (“we believe the evidentiary foundation for a communication

through [a social media platform] should follow the rules for writings in general”). Courts

do not presume the authenticity of a writing, but the proponent of the evidence must offer

some proof, whether through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the person purported

to have authored the writing actually did so. Wilson, 602 S.W.3d at 332-33; State v. Harris,

358 S.W.3d 172, 175 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011).

Authenticating a writing should not be unduly burdensome and does not require

conclusive proof of authorship; rather, authorship can be established with circumstantial

evidence. See Harris, 358 S.W.3d at 175. To establish authenticity, the proponent may

present evidence that the communication came from a device or account under the alleged

sender’s control, or that the content contains distinctive characteristics identifying the

author. Id. A defendant’s denial or failure to recall making a statement does not

automatically preclude admissibility where there is some evidence linking the message to

the sender. Wilson, 602 S.W.3d at 333 (finding sufficient foundation to admit social media

messages despite defendant’s claim he did not send them, where witness testified to

recognizing defendant’s profile photo and name and identified content as containing

information unlikely to be known by others); State v. Miller, 208 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Mo.

App. 2006) (“[t]o warrant the admission of evidence ... a prima facie showing of identity

5 and connection with the crime is necessary and sufficient; clear, certain, and positive proof

is not required.”)

We will not reverse a trial court’s decision to admit a writing so long as there was

some evidence to support the court’s finding of authenticity. See Snow, 437 S.W.3d at

403; cf. Harris, 358 S.W.3d at 176. Weaknesses in the evidence surrounding who authored

the writing do not affect admissibility but instead are to be considered by the jury when

deciding how much weight to give the writing. Snow, 437 S.W.3d at 403.

Here, there was sufficient evidence that Appellant was the author of the posts to lay

a foundation to admit them. Although Appellant testified that she did not recall making

the post in Exhibit 93, she confirmed that the post originated from her Instagram account,

and that no one else had access to the account. Appellant’s exclusive control over the

Instagram account was sufficient to attribute the online writing to her to establish a proper

foundation to admit Exhibit 93. See Harris, 358 S.W.3d at 175 (“[p]roof could be in the

form of admission by the author that he actually sent them, or simply an admission by the

author that the number from which the message was received is his number and that he has

control of that phone”).

Exhibit 94 was a screenshot of a post on Appellant’s Instagram account showing a

copy of the police report marked “defendant[’]s copy.” This distinctive detail uniquely

linking the Appellant in this case to the post was sufficient evidence of its authenticity and

genuineness to justify its admission. See Wilson, 602 S.W.3d at 333; see also Harris, 358

S.W.3d at 175. Further, during the cross-examination of Appellant, when shown Exhibit

94 and asked if she authored the post, Appellant responded “[p]ossibly,” and she also

conceded that, even though she did not remember the post, she agreed that it came from

6 her Instagram account. Moreover, Exhibits 93 and 94 were posted within the same hour

by the same account, and thus, the trial court could reasonably assume the same person

authored both posts.

During recross, Appellant testified that “at some point” she had deleted her

Instagram account and that an unknown individual created a new account with the identical

username of Bonnita_Applebum_. Although Appellant suggested that someone else could

have made the posts appear to come from her account, this argument affects only the weight

the jury should assign to the evidence, not its admissibility. See Snow, 437 S.W.3d at 403.

Because there was sufficient evidence in the record to establish the authenticity of the

Instagram posts, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Exhibits

93 and 94.

Moreover, even if the trial court erred in admitting State’s Exhibits 93 and 94 for

lack of foundation, which we do not concede, Appellant has not demonstrated that this

alleged error resulted in prejudice warranting reversal. See State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d

218, 223-24 (Mo. banc 2006) (for error to warrant reversal, defendant must prove that error

was so prejudicial that it deprived them of fair trial). Appellant contends that the Instagram

posts shown in Exhibits 93 and 94 portrayed her as aggressive and thereby weakened her

theory of self-defense, causing prejudice. However, even excluding the challenged

exhibits, the record contains sufficient evidence from which the jury could have disbelieved

Appellant’s self-defense claim anyway.

To assert self-defense, there must be “a real, actual and immediate threat of bodily

violence to which defendant’s actions are an appropriate and proportional response.” State

v. Miller, 91 S.W.3d 630, 635 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). In addition, the defendant must

7 show that they did not provoke the attack and that they attempted to avoid the

confrontation. Id. Appellant here testified that, upon entering the Airbnb apartment, she

both intentionally armed herself with a knife “just in case” and initiated the verbal

argument with Victim, although she alleged that Victim was the one to escalate the

argument into a physical fight. This testimony undermines her claim of self-defense, in

that it demonstrated that she provoked the argument and that she was not attempting to

avoid the confrontation. See id.

Further, the nature and location of Victim’s injuries, specifically deep gashes to her

chest, were inconsistent with Appellant’s claim that Victim was holding Appellant in a

chokehold from behind. When other evidence is inconsistent with a defendant’s claim of

self-defense, the jury may believe all, some, or none of the testimony of any witness,

including a defendant’s claim of self-defense. See State v. Demery, 568 S.W.3d 552, 556

(Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (affirming conviction where jury rejected defendant’s self-defense

claim because it was not supported by evidence). Last, Appellant fled the apartment

without seeking medical assistance for Victim, which supported an inference of

consciousness of guilt. See State v. Clark, 486 S.W.3d 479, 491-92 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016)

(finding defendant’s flight from the scene instead of rendering assistance, calling for

ambulance, or waiting for police to arrive suggested defendant did not act in self-defense).

Under the facts here, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial

would have been different had Exhibits 93 and 94 been excluded, and thus no prejudice

resulted. See Wilson, 602 S.W.3d at 334 (no prejudice where admitted evidence was not

outcome-determinative and there was no reasonable probability the jury would have

reached different result). Point denied.

8 Conclusion

The trial court’s judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, P.J., and James M. Dowd, J., concur.