Townsend v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1ConcurrenceGriffin, Judge
I agree with Judges Cobb and Sharp that Townsend I was correctly decided and that the threshold requirement of section 90.-803(23)(a)(l) meets the constitutional test of Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 819-20, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990).
In the present case, after remand in Townsend I, the issue of reliability was vigorously litigated. As required by section 90.803(23)(b), the state identified to the defendant each statement it intended to offer under the statute, when each statement was made and the circumstances surrounding each statement that indicated reliability.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Pardo v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
- State v. RhodenSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
- Russell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
- Gaither v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.