somewhat regular occurrence. It was also the event that had historically precipitated the decedent's violence against her. Britton testified that when she would disappear on a 'drug binge her husband would generally strike her several times upon her return, after which they would “make up.” This had happened, according to Britton, about three or four times over a three-year period. Because of this history, Britton testified she anticipated that her husband would strike her when she returned on the morning of the stabbing. 7 . See § 90.404(l)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (2004) (allowing prosecution in a homicide case to offer “[ejvidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim ... to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor”). 8 . See Cornelius v. State, 49 So.2d 332 (Fla. 1950) (<HOLDING>) TORPY, J., concurring specially. I concur with
holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case recognizing the purpose of crossexamination is to enlighten the jury as to whether the witness actuallyas a matter of fact knows the general reputation of the defendant and to place the jury in a better position to pass upon the credibility of the witness testimony recognizing that although the question of the credibility of witnesses is one for the jury alone such rule does not mean that the jury is at liberty under the guise of passing upon the credibility of a witness to disregard his testimony when from no reasonable point of view is it open to doubt holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness