ABDELILAH JABRI
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Authentication of evidence requires only a prima facie showing that the evidence is authentic; the ultimate determination is a question for the fact-finder.
[1] Authentication of evidence for admission requires only a prima facie showing of authenticity, with the ultimate determination of authenticity reserved for the fact-finder…
[2] When a victim testifies that she participated in a recorded conversation, has reviewed the tape before trial, identifies the voices as those of the parties, and confirms…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“authentication for the purpose of admission is a relatively low threshold that only requires a prima facie showing that the proffered evidence is authentic; the ultimate determination of the authenticity of the evidence is a question for the fact-finder”
Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16, 25 (Fla. 2016), cited to establish the standard for authentication
Appellant was convicted in a trial where a recorded conversation between the appellant and the victim was admitted as evidence. The victim testified t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prima Facie Showing Of Authenticity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16, 25 (Fla. 2016) (“We have indicated that authentication for the purpose of admission is a relatively low threshold that only requires a prima facie showing that the proffered evidence is authentic; the ultimate determination of the authenticity of the evidence is a question for the fact-finder.” (citing Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 700 (Fla. 2013))); Knight v. State, 20 So. 3d 451, 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (providing that “[t]here is no definitive list of requirements that must be met to authenticate an audio tape” and holding that when “[t]he victim testified that she was a participant in the [recorded] conversation, that she had listened to the tape before trial, that the voices on the tape were Appellant’s and hers and that the tape fairly and accurately memorialized the conversation . . . [n]o further predicate [for the authentication of the recording] was necessary”).
LAMBERT, C.J., EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Khadafy Kareem Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 2016)
- Knight v. State, 20 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)