In this appeal from multiple convictions of murder and attempted murder, appellant claims that the triаl court reversibly erred when it admitted a recording of appellant’s telephone conversation while in jail which inculpated him in the crimes. Appellant objected, to its admission because the voice identification by the investigating officer was inadequate, as he had only a brief conversation with the aрpellant. Because the investigating detective testified that he recognized appellant’s voiсe, the court did not err in admitting the recording. The credibility of that identification was properly left to the jury. Wе affirm.
These crimes occurred during a drug deal. Three victims drove to an apartment complex to sеll drugs to the two co-defendants, one of them being appellant Vil-
The surviving victim identified Vilsaint and his co-defendant from photos, and Vil-saint and the co-defendant were arrested and placed in cells at the jail. Two days later, the investigating detective asked to have calls from Vilsaint’s cell recorded. At trial, the state sought to have the investigating detective identify Vilsaint’s voice on the calls. The detective testified that he recognized Vilsaint’s voice from interviewing him during the booking process after his arrest. Defense counsеl objected on the grounds of “competence, lack of foundation.” The court overruled the оbjection.
During cross-examination, the detective testified that he had not actually participated in the booking. Defense then requested a sidebar and learned that the detective had actually started interrogating Vilsaint, who had invoked his Miranda rights. Defense counsel then objected and moved to strike the identificatiоn, because Vilsaint’s statements were being used against him as they created the means to identify his voice.
The state called a court translator who had translatеd the call and read from a transcript of the call. Defense counsel objected on best evidеnce grounds. In the call, Vilsaint stated, “They know I did it.”
In addition to the eyewitness identification, DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence tied Vilsaint to the crime scene and the chase scene. The jury found him guilty, and the court convicted and sentenced Vilsaint to multiple terms of life in prison for the murders and attempted murders. He appeals his conviction.
On appeal, Vilsaint contends that admission of the recorded jail telephоne call was error because it was not properly authenticated. While in his brief he argues that the stаte offered no evidence that the transcribed call was a fair and accurate representation of the telephone conversation, he did not object at trial on that ground. His sole objection at trial involved the detective’s voice identification.
The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretiоn of the trial court, subject to the rules of evidence, and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. See Vargas v. State,
Section 90.901, Florida Statutes (2010), addresses authentication and provides that it is a conditiоn precedent to admissibility. “The requirements of this section are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Id. As we noted in Symonette v. State, 100
Appellant did not object or chаllenge the operation of the device or the accuracy of the recording. He objected only to the detective’s identification of his voice on the tape. Voice identification is аdmissible in Florida. See Barrientos v. State,
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Notes
. This issue has not been raised on appeal by the defendant, because it is meritless. See State v. Trottman,