Clairvin v. State
56 So. 3d 854, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1076, 2011 WL 335314
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 4, 2011·No. No. 5D10-725·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
AFFIRMED. See Morton v. State, 689 So.2d 259, 264 (Fla.1997), receded from in part on other grounds, Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29, 47 (Fla.2000) (where witness gives both favorable and unfavorable testimony, party calling witness should usually be permitted to impeach witness with prior inconsistent statement; statement should be truly inconsistent and caution should be exercised in permitting impeachment of witness who has given favorable testimony but simply fails to recall every detail unless witness appears to be fabricating).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Clairvin v. State, 56 So. 3d 854, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1076, 2011 WL 335314 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).
56 So. 3d 854 (Clairvin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Clairvin v. State
162 So. 3d 192 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)