State v. Peak
This text of 406 So. 2d 477 (State v. Peak) 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.
Opinion
On the record before us, we cannot conclude, as contended by appellant, that the court abused its discretion in determining that the recanting of testimony of a material witness who had testified while under the influence of four valium pills, allegedly with the knowledge of the prosecutor, created serious doubt as to the integrity of the trial and warranted the granting of an evi-dentiary hearing and new trial on the defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e. g., State v. Matera, 266 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
406 So. 2d 477, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-peak-fladistctapp-1981.