PETER NUSSDORF, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1987-06-03
No. 4-86-0863
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
508 So. 2d 1273 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1987) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Prior Consistent Statement Undue Influence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prior Consistent Statement cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Jones, 625 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1993)
    …as consistent with that of the [*827] child at trial, satisfies the definition of non-hearsay in section 90.801(2)(b), and under the circumstances and facts of this particular case, it was properly admitted by the trial judge. See Nussdorf v. State, 508 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA1987). For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s decision is quashed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. . W…
  • Belcher v. State, 646 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
    …brication, the objected to testimony was relevant and properly admitted to counter the defendant’s line of questioning. See Anderson v. State, 574 So. 2d 87 (Fla.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 884, 112 S.Ct. 114, 116 L.Ed.2d 83 (1991); Nussdorf v. State, 508 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). B. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE THAT THE VICTIM SCREAMED IN THE NIGHT The defendant next argues that the admission of the evidence that the victim screamed in the night was reversible error because the testimony was irrelevant and pr…
  • State v. Nussdorf, 575 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
    …urt’s direction in Nussdorf v. State, 526 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).1 We reverse. The appellant was convicted and sentenced on three counts of sexual battery on a child victim. His direct appeal was affirmed by this court in Nussdorf v. State, 508 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Appellant also filed a petition for writ of coram nobis which this court granted finding that newly discovered evidence revealed in the petition would have precluded the entry of a judgment against appellant. Nussdorf v. State,…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw