HUNSTEIN, Justice.

Appellant Christopher Rayshun Smith was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Kevin Daniel and aggravated assault of Kamenika Whatley.^[1] Smith appeals, claiming three Jones opened the door. Sullivan went inside, aimed the shotgun at Daniel and Whatley and demanded drugs and money. Whatley complied but Daniel ignored the command and charged toward the intruders. Jones fled the house and hid behind Whatley’s car in the driveway as Daniel and Sullivan fought over the shotgun. Shortly thereafter, witnesses heard gunshots and the sound of glass breaking. Daniel stumbled outside holding the shotgun. He then fell off of his front porch and landed in the yard. Sullivan exited the house, stood over Daniel and shot him with a handgun. Sullivan then grabbed the shotgun, as well as Whatley’s and Daniel’s cell phones, and fled the scene with Jones. Smith picked up Sullivan and Jones in his red Chevy Malibu, at which time Sullivan explained that he had to shoot Daniel because Jones “messed everything up.”

When law enforcement arrived at Daniel’s home, they found him face down in the front yard and somewhat responsive. He was taken to the hospital and later died from multiple gunshot wounds. Law enforcement found a .40 caliber shell casing and $3,500 inside the home; they located drugs in the front yard. Cell phone records introduced at trial showed numerous phone calls made between Sullivan and Smith on the night of the murder. Daniel’s blood was found inside Smith’s red Chevy Malibu.

While they were incarcerated, Smith wrote letters to Jones regarding the case, including requests that Jones deny Smith’s involvement in the crimes. The State also introduced jail phone calls made by Smith in which he discussed the crimes, witnesses, and evidence.

1. Though not enumerated by Smith, we find that the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

proper foundation for the phone calls to be admitted. Specifically, Smith argues that the State failed to properly identify the speakers, the proper operation of the recording devices, and whether any changes or deletions were made to the recordings as required by Davis v. State, 279 Ga. 786 (621 SE2d 446) (2005) and its progeny. We disagree.

Contrary to Smith’s assertions, because he was tried after January 1, 2013, OCGA § 24-9-923 (c) of the new Evidence Code, not Davis, controls. See Jones v. State, 299 Ga. 40 (4) (785 SE2d 886) (2016). OCGA § 24-9-923 (c) allows the admission of computer controlled audio recordings, such as jail phone calls, “when the court determines, based on competent evidence presented to the court, that such items tend to show reliably the fact or facts for which the items are offered . . . .”

Here, the State called an investigator from the District Attorney’s Office to authenticate the two jail recordings. The investigator testified that she was able to access the jail’s recorded phone calls through a computer program. The investigator listened to Smith’s recorded calls and explained that she was able to identify the parties on both phone calls because they identified themselves in the recordings on numerous occasions. Moreover, both recordings contained automated information from the Floyd County Jail, including the number called, the inmate number, the date and time the call was placed, and a male voice identifying the caller as “Lil’ Chris,” Smith’s nickname. Finally, during the calls, the parties discussed information regarding the case, such as potential witnesses, the ongoing investigation by law enforcement, and the role of Smith’s co-indictees in the crimes. All of this evidence tends to show that the automated recordings were, in fact, recordings of the phone calls Smith made from jail to both his brother and wife. See Jones, 299 Ga. at 45. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these two phone calls at trial.

(b) Handwritten letters

Smith also claims that the trial court erred by admitting the letters adduced by the State at trial as authored by him because the State, he claims, failed to lay the proper foundation for their admission. OCGA § 24-9-901 requires “authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility” which “shall be satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Id. at (a). Authentication may be achieved through many means, including, but not limited to: “[t]estimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be[,]” id. at (b) (1); “[n]onexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation[,]” id. at (b) (2); and, “[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances[,]” id. at (b) (4). The party proffering the evidence must present sufficient evidence “‘to make out a prima facie case that the proffered evidence is what it purports to be.’ Once that prima facie case is established, the evidence is admitted and the ultimate question of authenticity is decided by the jury.” (Citations omitted.) United States v. Belfast, 611 F3d 783, 819 (VI) (C) (11th Cir. 2010). See also Brown v. State, 332 Ga. App. 635 (2) (774 SE2d 708) (2015).

Co-indictee Jones testified that he was familiar with Smith’s handwriting and further identified the handwriting in many of the letters as belonging to Smith. Jones also testified that many of the letters were either directly given to him by Smith, or were delivered by a third party at Smith’s request. Finally, the content of the letters referenced information concerning the case, including potential witnesses, evidence, and even included an affidavit for Jones to sign stating that Smith was not involved in the crimes. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Smith’s handwritten letters at trial as the State provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the letters were written and sent by Smith.

absolute right that mandates unlimited questioning by the defense.” To the contrary, trial courts “retain wide latitude . . . to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things . . . interrogation that is . . . only marginally relevant.” The permissible scope of cross-examination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review a limitation of the scope of cross-examination only for abuse of discretion. (Citations omitted.) Nicely v. State, 291 Ga. 788, 796 (4) (733 SE2d 715) (2012). We have previously held that, where a witness has not obtained a concrete plea deal from the State in exchange for his testimony, the accused “‘may not bring out the potential penalties faced by the witness.’” (Citations omitted.) Cheley v. State, 299 Ga. 88, 94 (4) (786 SE2d 642) (2016).

Here, the record shows that counsel was permitted to cross-examine Jones concerning his potential motive or bias, including the charges he was facing and any potential plea deal. “The mere fact that [Smith] was unable to ask [Jones] to conjecture about possible punishment did not diminish [Smith’s] attempt to show [Jones’] motive for testifying on behalf of the State, and did not amount to an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.” Hodo v. State, 272 Ga. 272, 275 (4) (528 SE2d 250) (2000).

Decided February 6, 2017.

Murder. Floyd Superior Court. Before Judge Durham.

Roger L. Curry, for appellant.

Leigh E. Patterson, District Attorney, Natalee L. Staats, Assistant District Attorney; Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth M. Haase, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.