M.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.H. v. State

271 So. 3d 138

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 20, 2019

DocketNo. 3D18-312

StatusPublished

This text of 271 So. 3d 138 (M.H. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M.H. v. State, 271 So. 3d 138 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Joseph v. State, 868 So.2d 5, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("[The defendant] was not asked for his opinion of the detective's credibility. [He] was not required to choose between conceding the point or branding the detective as a liar. Asking whether another witness is 'wrong,' 'not accurate,' or 'mistaken' is very different from asking whether the witness is a liar.") (internal citations omitted); U.S. v. Gaines, 170 F.3d 72, 82 (1st Cir. 1999) ("The witness was not required to choose between conceding the point or branding another witness as a liar."); U.S. v. Gaind, 31 F.3d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Asking a witness whether a previous witness who gave conflicting testimony is 'mistaken' highlights the objective conflict without requiring the witness to condemn the prior witness a purveyor of deliberate falsehood, i.e., a 'liar.' ").

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Joseph v. State, 868 So.2d 5, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("[The defendant] was not asked for his opinion of the detective's credibility. [He] was not required to choose between conceding the point or branding the detective as a liar. Asking whether another witness is 'wrong,' 'not accurate,' or 'mistaken' is very different from asking whether the witness is a liar.") (internal citations omitted); U.S. v. Gaines, 170 F.3d 72, 82 (1st Cir. 1999) ("The witness was not required to choose between conceding the point or branding another witness as a liar."); U.S. v. Gaind, 31 F.3d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Asking a witness whether a previous witness who gave conflicting testimony is 'mistaken' highlights the objective conflict without requiring the witness to condemn the prior witness a purveyor of deliberate falsehood, i.e., a 'liar.' ").

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 So. 3d 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mh-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack