PATTERSON v. STATE (2022)

Ricky Patterson appeals his conviction for violation of an injunction for protection against domestic violence in violation of section 741.31, Florida Statutes (2020). The State presented witness testimony that Patterson violated the injunction by contacting the victim via a telephone call and voicemail. Patterson argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony regarding the phone call and voicemail without proper authentication.

While it is true that “authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility” and that authentication is “satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims,” § 90.901, Fla. Stat., when a witness testifies to something within her personal knowledge, that testimony is admissible without further authentication because “[e]vidence to prove personal knowledge may be given by the witness's own testimony.” Here, the victim testified that she received a phone call from a phone number saved in her phone as Patterson's. Testifying about a phone call does not require authentication if the call is within the witness's personal knowledge. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the victim's testimony.

Affirmed.

Long, J.

Makar and Winokur, JJ., concur.