M.H. v. State

271 So. 3d 138
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 20, 2019·No. No. 3D18-312·Published

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

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

271 So. 3d 138 (M.H. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Arun Gaind
31 F.3d 73 (Second Circuit, 1994)
Joseph v. State
868 So. 2d 5 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)