¶1AFFIRMED. See Morton v. State, 689 So.2d 259, 264 (Fla.1997), receded from in part on other grounds, Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29, 47 (Fla.2000) (where witness gives both favorable and unfavorable testimony, party calling witness should usually be permitted to impeach witness with prior inconsistent statement; statement should be truly inconsistent and caution should be exercised in permitting impeachment of witness who has given favorable testimony but simply fails to recall every detail unless witness appears to be fabricating).
56 So. 3d 854
Clairvin v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided February 4, 2011
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2011-02-04
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2015
1 state decisions
Relies on 753 So. 2d 29 - Rodriguez v. State · 689 So. 2d 259 - Morton v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2011-02-04
View the full empirical analysis of this case →