244 So. 3d 294
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant Taide Wiston Asencio, Jr. was charged with three counts of attempted murder with a firearm and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle for firing into a truck at a convenience store.
- The State sought to admit a recorded jail telephone call in which a speaker confessed details of the shooting.
- A detective testified she spoke with appellant and was familiar with his voice but mistakenly identified the voice on the recording as “Sanchez,” a victim’s name; the prosecutor did not correct or further develop this testimony then.
- A Palm Beach County jail telecommunications records custodian authenticated the recording by describing a three-tier verification process (booking number, PIN, voice-recognition) and producing a CD of appellant’s calls; the court admitted the recording over defense objection.
- After trial, the jury acquitted on attempted murder counts but convicted on shooting-into-an-occupied-vehicle; shortly before deliberations two alternate jurors briefly reentered the jury room to retrieve personal items and were then discharged.
- Appellant appealed, challenging (1) admission/authentication of the jail call and (2) the alternates’ brief presence in the jury room; the court affirmed on both issues (and summarily rejected an inconsistent-verdict claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of jail-call recording | State: records custodian’s testimony about the jail’s booking/PIN/voice-recog system and call-storage practices sufficiently authenticates the recording | Asencio: recording not properly authenticated; detective’s voice ID was unreliable/misidentified | Court: Admission was not an abuse of discretion — custodian’s three-tier verification plus inculpatory statements on the call provided sufficient indicia of authenticity |
| Alternate jurors briefly entering jury room pre-deliberation | State: brief return occurred before deliberations and was mere organizational activity; no prejudice shown | Asencio: any presence of alternates in jury room after charge undermines secrecy of deliberations and requires mistrial | Court: Issue unpreserved (no objection); reviewed for fundamental error and rejected — brief, inadvertent, pre-deliberation presence was harmless and did not contaminate deliberations |
Key Cases Cited
- McDuffie v. State, 970 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2007) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Evans v. State, 177 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2015) (authentication via witness with familiarity of voice)
- Vilsaint v. State, 127 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (no fixed checklist for authentication; facts determine sufficiency)
- Harris, United States v. Harris, [citation="338 F. App'x 892"] (11th Cir. 2009) (jail-call authenticated by association with inmate ID/I‑PIN and corroborating facts in recording)
- James v. State, 843 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (failure to object preserves no appellate claim; fundamental-error standard explained)