¶1As to the admissibility of the tape recordings, we affirm upon the authority of Odum v. State, 403 So.2d 936 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 925, 102 S.Ct.1970, 72 L.Ed.2d 440 (1982), Tumulty v. State, 489 So.2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and section 934.03(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1985).
¶2As to the admissibility of the “battered woman syndrome” evidence, we affirm upon the authority of Kruse v. State, 483 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. dismissed, 507 So.2d 588 (Fla.1987), Terry v. State, 467 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 476 So.2d 675 (Fla.1985), and State v. Ciskie, 110 Wash.2d 263, 268, 751 P.2d 1165, 1170 (1988).
¶3As to the imposition of consecutive sentences, we affirm upon the authority of Murray v. State, 491 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1986).