Nussdorf v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nussdorf v. State

508 So. 2d 1273, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1393, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8539

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-0863

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 1273 (Nussdorf 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

Nussdorf v. State, 508 So. 2d 1273, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1393, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8539 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s admission of the victim’s prior consistent statement pursuant to section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant argues that the victim’s testimony was the product of improper influence and thus a fabrication. However the record does not support appellant’s argument that the victim made her prior consistent statement after the claimed undue influence had already occurred. When asked by appellant’s counsel whether the prosecutor had helped her to remember, she answered affirmatively, and, also answered affirmatively that the prosecutor had talked with her about the case the day prior to the trial. The victim gave the tape-recorded prior consistent statement months before the trial. Therefore we find no error in the trial court’s admission of the tape recorded statement and affirm on the authority of Begley v. State, 483 So.2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

We find no merit in appellant’s second point on appeal. The record sufficiently establishes that the crimes were committed within the time frames alleged in the information and the bill of particulars. Accordingly the conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s admission of the victim’s prior consistent statement pursuant to section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant argues that the victim’s testimony was the product of improper influence and thus a fabrication. However the record does not support appellant’s argument that the victim made her prior consistent statement after the claimed undue influence had already occurred. When asked by appellant’s counsel whether the prosecutor had helped her to remember, she answered affirmatively, and, also answered affirmatively that the prosecutor had talked with her about the case the day prior to the trial. The victim gave the tape-recorded prior consistent statement months before the trial. Therefore we find no error in the trial court’s admission of the tape recorded statement and affirm on the authority of Begley v. State, 483 So.2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

We find no merit in appellant’s second point on appeal. The record sufficiently establishes that the crimes were committed within the time frames alleged in the information and the bill of particulars. Accordingly the conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 1273, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1393, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nussdorf-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack