A person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts are not barred by the character rule either if they are not offered to show that person's propensity or if they are not offered to show that that person engaged in conduct on a particular occasion because of his or her propensity to engage in that sort of conduct.

Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) ("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.").A thing or matter is sufficiently authenticated to be admissible in evidence if the authenticating evidence submitted to the trial court is sufficient -- strong enough -- to permit a reasonable jury or reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the proffered thing or matter is authentic, that the proffered thing or matter is what its proponent claims it is.

United States v. Hadley, 431 F.3d 484, 495-496 (6th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of defendant wife's statements as excited utterances because "an ongoing domestic dispute that warranted two 911 calls....A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.

Cf. Field v. Trigg County Hospital, Inc., 386 F.3d 729, 735-736 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding, in plaintiff spouses action against defendants hospital and physician for malpractice and negligence that the "Vanderbilt physicians' statements,....Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.