ANGUS SCOTT, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,

v.

ROBERT PRESSLER, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Citator

Cited By

• Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1992)
  …. Accordingly, because the statements in question were given prior to the plea negotiations and therefore prior to the existence of both witnesses’ motive to fabricate they were properly admitted. Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d at 160; Wilson v. State, 434 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The State concedes that the testimony of Detective Castillo recounting the information gathered by police from witnesses concerning Mr. Saladrigas’ dying declarations, as well as the detective’s testimony concerning Jose Arzola…
• Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1986)
  …he witnesses’ credibility, raising the specters of both improper motive and recent fabrication. Because, too, the statement in question was made at the time of Taylor’s arrest in October 1982, prior to the robbery plea negotiations, Wilson v. State, 434 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and the actual filing of the Georgia murder charge, the trial court could properly have found that the statement was made prior to the existence of Taylor’s motive to fabricate. In his sixth point on appeal, appellant argues th…
• Carroll v. State, 497 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
  …only permits the admission of prior consistent statements made before the existence of the facts said to indicate the improper influence. See Preston v. State, 470 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); McElveen, 415 So. 2d at 748. See also Wilson v. State, 434 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Kellam, 287 So. 2d at 734. In the present case, the fact said to indicate the influence was the discussion between Martin and the police, which occurred prior to Martin making the statement involved here. Thus, all Martin’s stat…