preserved for review. Even if Polite had preserved this issue for review, we believe that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to secure admission of the statement under section 90.803(5). The hearsay exception for past recollection recorded provides: Section 90.803(5) Recorded Recollection The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (5) Recorded Recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge, but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory and to reflect that knowledge ) (<HOLDING>); Montano v. State, 846 So.2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA
holding tape recorded statement given to police shortly after criminal incident was inadmissible under section 908035 when witness did not remember its contents and did not testify that it correctly reflected her knowledge or that she tried to be truthful at the time she made the statement holding that where witness was unable or unwilling to attest to the accuracy of the taped conversation the state could not introduce the same as a past recollection recorded holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding past recollection recorded and prior inconsistent statement insufficient standing alone to establish central element of alleged offense holding audiotape recordings were inadmissible as past recollection recorded where witnesses did not testify that the recordings accurately reflected their memories of events when made