Plaintiff sued defendant for stalking her and firing crossbow bolts and bullets at her office.  The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence an audio recording of a telephone call plaintiff made to defendant at the request of the police.  The recording was adequately authenticated.  Plaintiff testified she recognizes the voices on the tape as hers and defendant’s.  The police testified about the means of recording the call.  Though recorded in violation of Penal Code 632, the recording was admissible to impeach defendant, who had testified that his car was in storage so he couldn’t have been the person who fired bullets at plaintiff’s office.  Security camera footage was also properly admitted.  Plaintiff testified it was recorded by her equipment.  There was no need for her to know how the video cameras operated.  It was enough for her to testify that she knew how to operate them and that she had sole control over the cameras and their recordings.  The trial court also did not commit error in instructing the jury on the elements of the plaintiff’s claims.  In particular, on the stalking claim, the trial court correctly instructed that though an element of the claim is telling the defendant clearly to desist, but that plaintiff was not required to do so if defendant had made it impossible for her to make the demand.