of the victim’s account of the appellant’s previous statement. Had the trial court precluded this testimony, the jury would have been required to assess the victim’s credibility with an incomplete account of relevant evidence relating to her credibility. In these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the state to present the challenged testimony on redirect examination. See, e.g., Love v. State, 971 So.2d 280, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (recognizing that the opening the door concept is based on considerations of fairness and the truth seeking function of a trial and may be employed when redirect examination serves to reveal the whole story of a transaction only partly explained in cross examination); see also Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688 (Fla.1996) (<HOLDING>). The appellant’s conviction and sentence are
holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that section 90403 florida statutes did not preclude testimony that a critical state witness knew that the defendant had previously murdered a child when the credibility of the witness was at issue due to his failure initially to fully cooperate with law enforcement officers investigating the crime for which the defendant was on trial 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 holding that accused has right to crossexamine witness on issue of a witness potential bias that stemmed from the fact that the witness had instituted a civil action for damages against the defendant arising from the crime charged holding that evidence that the defendant and a witness sold drugs together was relevant to prove how the witness knew the defendant