Case Name: M.H., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2019-03-20
Citations: 271 So. 3d 138
Docket Number: No. 3D18-312
Parties: M.H., a Juvenile, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SALTER, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 271
Pages: 138–138

Head Matter:
M.H., a Juvenile, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D18-312
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed March 20, 2019.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SALTER, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Joseph v. State, 868 So.2d 5, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("[The defendant] was not asked for his opinion of the detective's credibility. [He] was not required to choose between conceding the point or branding the detective as a liar. Asking whether another witness is 'wrong,' 'not accurate,' or 'mistaken' is very different from asking whether the witness is a liar.") (internal citations omitted); U.S. v. Gaines, 170 F.3d 72, 82 (1st Cir. 1999) ("The witness was not required to choose between conceding the point or branding another witness as a liar."); U.S. v. Gaind, 31 F.3d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Asking a witness whether a previous witness who gave conflicting testimony is 'mistaken' highlights the objective conflict without requiring the witness to condemn the prior witness a purveyor of deliberate falsehood, i.e., a 'liar.' ").