Reed v. State
927 So. 2d 954, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3686, 2006 WL 664186
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 17, 2006·No. No. 5D05-1741·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
AFFIRMED. See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 197-198 (Fla.1997) (recognizing prior consistent statements are considered non-hearsay if the following conditions are met: the person who made the prior consistent statement testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning that statement; and the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication, citing Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493, 499 (Fla.1992)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Reed v. State, 927 So. 2d 954, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3686, 2006 WL 664186 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
927 So. 2d 954 (Reed v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kelvin Leon Reed v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
767 F.3d 1252 (Eleventh Circuit, 2014)