Vilsaint v. State
127 So. 3d 647
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendants (Vilsaint and a co-defendant) were involved in a drug-related encounter in which multiple victims were shot; one victim died and others were wounded.
- Surviving victim identified Vilsaint from photos; Vilsaint and co-defendant were arrested and held in jail cells.
- Two days after arrest, jail telephone calls from Vilsaint’s cell were recorded; a translated transcript of a recorded call included the statement, “They know I did it.”
- At trial the state offered the recording; an investigating detective identified the voice on the tape, saying he recognized Vilsaint’s voice from a prior interview during booking. Defense impeached this, eliciting that the detective’s basis was roughly 36 words (many “yes”/“no”) and that the recorded call was in Creole while the booking interaction was in English.
- Defense objected at trial only to the adequacy of the detective’s voice identification; the trial court overruled and admitted the recording. Vilsaint was convicted of murder and attempted murder and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recorded jail phone call was properly authenticated | State: Recording admissible; detective’s voice ID sufficient foundation | Vilsaint: Voice ID inadequate because detective had limited contact and ID relied on brief exchange; translation/best-evidence concerns | Court: Admission proper; detective’s identification sufficed for authentication; credibility for jury |
| Whether the recording’s transcript met best-evidence/authenticity | State: Transcript and translator adequately showed content of call | Vilsaint: Transcript not proven a fair/accurate representation (not preserved at trial) | Court: No contemporaneous objection on transcription accuracy; issue not preserved on appeal |
| Whether identification implicated Miranda/Fifth Amendment | State: Compelling voice for ID is permissible and non-testimonial | Vilsaint: Using statements to identify voice used his silence/invocation against him and prevented effective cross-examination | Court: Fifth Amendment argument meritless; compelling voice identification is allowed; trial court properly denied striking ID |
| Standard of review for admissibility of recorded evidence | State: Trial court has discretion under authentication rules | Vilsaint: Admission was an abuse of discretion due to weak foundation | Court: Abuse-of-discretion standard applies; no abuse found |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 979 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA) (recording authentication factors include device operation, accuracy, and voice ID)
- Symonette v. State, 100 So.3d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA) (authentication requirements are case-specific)
- Barrientos v. State, 1 So.3d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA) (voice identification admissible; credibility for jury)
- Worley v. State, 263 So.2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA) (credibility of voice ID for jury)
- State v. Trottman, 701 So.2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA) (compelling a suspect to produce voice does not violate Fifth Amendment)