top of page
Presented by (2).png

Authenticating Taped Phone Conversation

Victim properly authenticated a taped recording of her conversation with the defendant under SCRE 901(b)(1), (5), and (6). She testified that she had known him for over ten years, been in a relationship with him, she listened to the tape, she recognized the tape from her initials on it, and that the tape fairly and accurately represented their conversation. Chain of custody was not necessary for the tape because the victim properly authenticated it. The court cited two cases in a footnote that held that a chain of custody is not necessary “where the witness had first-hand knowledge of conversations and identified the voices on the tape” and where the participant in the taped conversation reviewed the tape and testified that it was accurate of the conversation. · State v. Aragon, 354 S.C. 334 (Ct. App. 2003)


Die Kommentarfunktion wurde abgeschaltet.
bottom of page