authentication requirement in Texas

2014App. 1999); Mitchell v. State, 419 S.W.3d 655, 660 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d). 17 See Angleton, 971 S.W.2d at 67 (“The authentication requirement for admissibility ‘is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’” (quoting Tex. R.

2004Appellant argues that the State was required to satisfy the three-part authentication test applied in Angleton v. State, 971 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Tex. Crim.

2025“The authentication requirement for admissibility is met once the State has shown the beginning and the end of the chain of custody, particularly when the chain ends at a laboratory.” Cain v. State, 501 S.W.3d 172, 175 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.) (quoting Martinez, 186 S.W.3d at 62 ).1 “Absent evidence of tampering or other fraud, 1 Our Court has previously determined that the “chain[] of custody commence[s] with the officer taking possession of the drug either from the defendant or from the cooperating buyer.” Alexander v. State, No. 06-06-00169-CR, 2007 WL 2262895 , at *9 (Tex. App.—

2024“The authentication requirement for admissibility is met once the State has shown the beginning and the end of the chain of custody, particularly when the chain ends at a laboratory.” Martinez v. State, 186 S.W.3d 59, 62 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d).

2025The authentication requirement is satisfied by evidence demonstrating the item’s distinctive characteristics, such as content and substance, “taken in conjunction with circumstances.” See Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491, 502 (Tex. Crim.

2025“The authentication requirement for admissibility is met once the State has shown the beginning and the end of the chain of custody, particularly when the chain ends at a laboratory.” Cain v. State, 501 S.W.3d 172, 175 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.) (quoting Martinez, 186 S.W.3d at 62 ).1 “Absent evidence of tampering or other fraud, 1 Our Court has previously determined that the “chain[] of custody commence[s] with the officer taking possession of the drug either from the defendant or from the cooperating buyer.” Alexander v. State, No. 06-06-00169-CR, 2007 WL 2262895 , at *9 (Tex. App.—

2014Contracting, 346 S.W.3d at 181 ; see also Kirwan v. City of Waco, 249 S.W.3d 544, 549 (Tex.App.-Waco 2008) (holding, in case involving authentication of photographs, that Rule 901 does not require that affiant take photographs, observe their making, or know when photographs were taken; instead, “[a]ll that is necessary is testimony from a witness with personal knowledge that the photographs accurately depict what they are ‘claimed to be’ ”), rev’d on other grounds, 298 S.W.3d 618 (Tex.2009).

2014Contracting, 346 S.W.3d at 181 ; see also Kirwan v. City of Waco, 249 S.W.3d 544, 549 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (holding, in case involving authentication of photographs, that Rule 901 does not require that affiant take photographs, observe their making, or know when photographs were taken; instead, “[a]ll that is necessary is testimony from a witness with personal knowledge that the photographs accurately depict what they are ‘claimed to be’”), rev’d on other grounds, 298 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2009).

2014Contracting, 346 S.W.3d at 181 ; see also Kirwan v. City of Waco, 249 S.W.3d 544, 549 (Tex.App.-Waco 2008) (holding, in case involving authentication of photographs, that Rule 901 does not require that affiant take photographs, observe their making, or know when photographs were taken; instead, “[a]ll that is necessary is testimony from a witness with personal knowledge that the photographs accurately depict what they are ‘claimed to be’ ”), rev’d on other grounds, 298 S.W.3d 618 (Tex.2009).

2014Contracting, 346 S.W.3d at 181 ; see also Kirwan v. City of Waco, 249 S.W.3d 544, 549 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (holding, in case involving authentication of photographs, that Rule 901 does not require that affiant take photographs, observe their making, or know when photographs were taken; instead, “[a]ll that is necessary is testimony from a witness with personal knowledge that the photographs accurately depict what they are ‘claimed to be’”), rev’d on other grounds, 298 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2009).

2025Fowler, 544 S.W.3d at 848 -49 (quoting Butler, 459 S.W.3d at 600 ).

2025The authentication standard “has been aptly described as a ‘liberal standard of admissibility.’” Butler v. State, 459 S.W.3d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim.

2024Id. at 638 . 3 Texas Rule of Evidence 901 governs the authentication requirement for admissibility of evidence, including sound recordings.

2021“The preliminary question for the trial court to decide is simply whether the proponent of the evidence has supplied facts that are sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination that the evidence he has proffered is authentic.” Id. 20 “Rules of Evidence 901 and 902 govern the authentication requirement.” Jones v. State, 572 S.W.3d 841, 848 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.).

2020Watson, 421 S.W.3d at 190; Mitchell v. State, 419 S.W.3d 655, 659 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d).

2014App. 1999); Mitchell v. State, 419 S.W.3d 655, 660 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d). 17 See Angleton, 971 S.W.2d at 67 (“The authentication requirement for admissibility ‘is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’” (quoting Tex. R.

2024The authentication rule 901 “merely requires some evidence sufficient to support a finding that evidence in question is what the proponent claims.” Id.

2021The authentication requirement can be satisfied for a voice recording by, among other things, “[a]n opinion identifying a person’s voice—whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording—based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.” Id. 901 (b)(5); see also Diamond v. State, 496 S.W.3d 124 , 141–42 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet ref’d).

2024“Rules of Evidence 901 and 902 govern the authentication requirement.” Jones v. State, 572 S.W.3d 841, 848 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.).

2021“The preliminary question for the trial court to decide is simply whether the proponent of the evidence has supplied facts that are sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination that the evidence he has proffered is authentic.” Id. 20 “Rules of Evidence 901 and 902 govern the authentication requirement.” Jones v. State, 572 S.W.3d 841, 848 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.).

2017See In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Tex. 2005); In re J.A.S., No. 11-09-00176-CV, 2011 WL 704390 , at *3 (Tex. App.-Eastland Jan. 13, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); Sanchez v. Texas State Bd. of Med.

2014See id. 1 For example, in response to whether Walls was cited with a criminal trespass warning by Temple Beth-El, Walls testified that she was issued a letter and asked not to return there.

2016Examiners, 229 S.W.3d 498, 509 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, no pet.).

2014Exam’rs, 229 S.W.3d 498, 509 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, no pet.).

2014Contracting, 346 S.W.3d at 181 (“Coiner’s testimony that the evidence accurately portrays what AMS claims it portrays, which is the records and photographs from the BW project that were compiled during work on the project, is sufficient evidence to satisfy the authentication requirement of Rule 901(a), regardless of whether Coiner had personal knowledge of the contents of this evidence.”).

2014Contracting, 346 S.W.3d at 181 (“Coiner’s testimony that the evidence accurately portrays what AMS claims it portrays, which is the records and photographs from the BW project that were compiled during work on the project, is sufficient evidence to satisfy the authentication requirement of Rule 901(a), regardless of whether Coiner had personal knowledge of the contents of this evidence.”).

2014Evid. 901(a))); Watson v. State, 421 S.W.3d 186, 190 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d) (“Courts traditionally provide a broad reading of Rule 901, allowing the jury to weigh the credibility of the evidence, ‘[s]o long as the authenticity of the proffered evidence was at least within the zone of reasonable disagreement.’” (quoting Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545, 552 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.))). 18 See Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 193 ; Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim.

2009EVID. 901(b)(1) & (4). [38] See Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491, 502 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) ("The trial judge does not abuse his or her discretion in admitting evidence where he or she reasonably believes that a reasonable juror could find that the evidence has been authenticated or identified"). [39] See Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (the erroneous admission of evidence is harmless when that same evidence is later admitted without objection). [40] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [41] 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977

2012Manuel v. State, 357 S.W.3d 66, 74 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2011, pet. ref’d) 14 Under the authentication rule, the trial court’s role is limited to determining whether the proponent of evidence requiring authentication has presented a prima facie case, i.e., evidence sufficient to support a jury finding that the item in question is what its proponent claims.

2012Manuel v. State , 357 S.W.3d 66, 74 (Tex. App.--Tyler 2011, pet. ref'd) Under the authentication rule, the trial court's role is limited to determining whether the proponent of evidence requiring authentication has presented a prima facie case, i.e., evidence sufficient to support a jury finding that the item in question is what its proponent claims.

2026Testimony by a witness or affiant identifying the exhibits as the business records of the proponent of the evidence “is sufficient evidence to satisfy the authentication requirement of Rule 901(a), regardless of whether [the witness] had 25 personal knowledge of the contents of this evidence.” H2O Sols., Ltd., 438 S.W.3d at 622 .

2023“Testimony by a witness or affiant identifying the exhibits as the business records of the proponent of the evidence ‘is sufficient evidence to satisfy the authentication requirement of Rule 901(a), regardless of whether the witness had personal knowledge of the contents of this evidence.’” [H2O Sols., Ltd. v. PM Realty Grp., LP, 438 S.W.3d 606, 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied)] (quoting Concept Gen.

2023Martinez, 186 S.W.3d at 62 ; Gallegos v. State, 776 S.W.2d 312 , 315–16 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.).

2016Gallegos v. State, 776 S.W.2d 312 , 315–16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.).

2010Evid. 901(a); Reavis, 84 S.W.3d at 719 .

2010Evid . 901(a); Reavis , 84 S.W.3d at 719 .

2026The authentication requirement “is a liberal standard of admissibility.” Fowler, 544 S.W.3d at 848 .

2022“The erroneous admission of evidence is non-constitutional error.” Gonzalez v. State, 544 S.W.3d 363, 373 (Tex. Crim.

2020Watson, 421 S.W.3d at 190 ; Mitchell v. State, 419 S.W.3d 655, 659 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref'd).

2014Evid. 901(a))); Watson v. State, 421 S.W.3d 186, 190 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d) (“Courts traditionally provide a broad reading of Rule 901, allowing the jury to weigh the credibility of the evidence, ‘[s]o long as the authenticity of the proffered evidence was at least within the zone of reasonable disagreement.’” (quoting Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545, 552 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.))). 18 See Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 193 ; Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim.

2017A. Authentication The issue of authentication arises when “‘the relevancy of any evidence depends upon its identity, source, or connection with a particular person, place, thing, or event.’” Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545 , 548–49 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (quoting Shea v. State, 167 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. ref’d)).

2014Evid. 901(a))); Watson v. State, 421 S.W.3d 186, 190 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d) (“Courts traditionally provide a broad reading of Rule 901, allowing the jury to weigh the credibility of the evidence, ‘[s]o long as the authenticity of the proffered evidence was at least within the zone of reasonable disagreement.’” (quoting Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545, 552 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.))). 18 See Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 193 ; Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim.

2025“The authentication requirement for admissibility is met once the State has shown the beginning and the end of the chain of custody, particularly when the chain ends at a laboratory.” Cain v. State, 501 S.W.3d 172, 175 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.) (quoting Martinez, 186 S.W.3d at 62 ).1 “Absent evidence of tampering or other fraud, 1 Our Court has previously determined that the “chain[] of custody commence[s] with the officer taking possession of the drug either from the defendant or from the cooperating buyer.” Alexander v. State, No. 06-06-00169-CR, 2007 WL 2262895 , at *9 (Tex. App.—

2024See S.D.G. v. State, 936 S.W.2d 371, 381 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996), writ denied). (“The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”) Similarly, this court held a hearsay objection made at trial does not preserve a Confrontation Clause error on appeal.

2023Res., 564 S.W.3d at 122 (recognizing that a party moving to compel arbitration bears the initial evidentiary burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, which includes “threshold evidentiary issues such as authenticity”); Kmart Stores of Tex., 510 S.W.3d at 567-68 (discussing the need to authenticate documents attached to a motion to compel arbitration as a prerequisite to admissibility). 9 The authentication requirement “is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” United Rentals, Inc. v. Smith, 445 S

2023Afterwards, they’re packaged and then put into evidence at the Rockwall County Sheriff’s Office.” 13 See Lagrone, 942 S.W.2d at 617 (“Without evidence of tampering, most questions concerning care and custody of a substance go to the weight attached, not the admissibility, of the evidence.”) (citations omitted); see also Shaw, 329 S.W.3d at 654 (rejecting a defendant’s argument that a trial court erred in admitting certain evidence when the record contained evidence of the beginning, middle, and end of the chain of custody and defendant had not shown any evidence of tampering or impropriety); M

2023Afterwards, they’re packaged and then put into evidence at the Rockwall County Sheriff’s Office.” 13 See Lagrone, 942 S.W.2d at 617 (“Without evidence of tampering, most questions concerning care and custody of a substance go to the weight attached, not the admissibility, of the evidence.”) (citations omitted); see also Shaw, 329 S.W.3d at 654 (rejecting a defendant’s argument that a trial court erred in admitting certain evidence when the record contained evidence of the beginning, middle, and end of the chain of custody and defendant had not shown any evidence of tampering or impropriety); M

2023Res., 564 S.W.3d at 122 (recognizing that a party moving to compel arbitration bears the initial evidentiary burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, which includes “threshold evidentiary issues such as authenticity”); Kmart Stores of Tex., 510 S.W.3d at 567-68 (discussing the need to authenticate documents attached to a motion to compel arbitration as a prerequisite to admissibility). 9 The authentication requirement “is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” United Rentals, Inc. v. Smith, 445 S