examination. Cross-examination should always be allowed relative to the details of an event or transaction a portion only of which has been testified to on direct examination. As has been stated, cross-examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the facts testified to in chief.”) (quoting Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 151 (Fla.1978)). We also note that although Ms. Levine did not acknowledge identifying Polite to the police in response to the State’s questions on direct, her acknowledgement was not necessary for admission of the evidence under section 90.801(2)(c). See, e.g., Brown v. State, 413 So.2d 414, 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>); A.T. v. State, 448 So.2d 613, 614 (Fla. 3d
holding that prior identification is not hearsay when the declarant is available at trial for crossexamination and that it makes no difference whether the witness admits or denies or fails to recall making the prior identification holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution holding that the admission of testimonial statements against a defendant is unconstitutional when the declarant does not appear at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination holding that admission of a witness prior identification statement where the witness could not remember the basis for the identification did not violate the confrontation clause or fedrevid 802