In State v. Haight-Gyuro, 218 Ariz. 356, 359-61, 186 P.3d 33, 36-38 (App. 2008), for instance, an Arizona appellate panel noted that some states have taken a formalized approach to silent-witness authentication, whereas others have used more general guidelines. Alabama, it noted, has adopted a seven-element test, requiring of the proponent: (1) a showing that the system used 'was capable of recording what a witness would have seen or heard had a witness been present at the scene or event recorded'; (2) a showing that the operator was competent; (3) 'establishment ... of the authenticity and correctness of the resulting recording'; (4) a showing that no alterations had been made; (5) a showing of the manner by which the 'recording ... was preserved'; (6) 'identification of ... the speakers, or persons pictured'; (7) in criminal cases, a showing that any statements made were voluntary." Haight-Gyuro, 218 Ariz. at 359, 186 P.3d at 36, quoting Ex Parte Fuller, 620 So. 2d 675, 678 (Ala. 1993). Indiana, by contrast, simply "requires a of the case." Haight-Gyuro, 218 Ariz. at 359, 186 P.3d at 36, quoting Kindred v. State, 524 N.E.2d 279, 298 (Ind. 1988), quoting Bergner v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1012, 1017 (Ind. App. 1979).