abuse of discretion standard in Florida

2026See, e.g., Weiss v. Est. of Courshon, 990 So. 2d 611, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ("We review the trial court's determinations regarding the state of the record . . . and any purported showing of 'good cause' under the abuse of discretion standard." (citing Swait v. Swait, 958 So. 2 552, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007))). "[Judicial] discretion 'is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.' " Johnson v. State, 397 So. 3d 626 , 639 (Fla. 2024) (

2023See Engle, 945 So. 2d at 1263 (“Under Florida law, a trial court’s determination of whether a damage award is excessive, requiring a remittitur or a new trial, is reviewed by an appellate court under an abuse of discretion standard.”); see also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.”). 4.

2026Standard of Review “Generally, this Court reviews a trial court’s admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Gartner v. State, 118 So. 3d 273 , 275–76 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96, 107 (Fla. 2008) (additional citation omitted)). “[The lower court’s evidentiary] discretion is limited, however, by the rules of evidence and the doctrine of stare decisis . . . .” Taylor v. State, 146 So. 3d 113, 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

2024See Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96, 107 (Fla. 2008) (“We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2023We review “a trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial under an abuse of discretion standard.” Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 371 (Fla. 2008).

2021Following Peterson’s direct examination, defense counsel made a motion for mistrial, which the court denied. - 54 - A motion for mistrial should only be granted “when an error is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 372 (Fla. 2008) (quoting England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389, 401-02 (Fla. 2006)). “[T]his Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. at 371.

2006A trial court's decision regarding the weight to be assigned to a mitigating circumstance that it determines has been established is "within the trial court's discretion, and its decision is subject to the abuse-of-discretion standard." Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119, 1133 (Fla. 2000); see also Trease, 768 So.2d at 1055 ; Cole v. State, 701 So.2d 845, 852 (Fla.1997).

2006Mitigating Circumstances A. Statutory Mitigation A trial court's decision with regard to the weight to be assigned to a mitigating circumstance that it determines has been established is "within the trial court's discretion, and its decision is subject to the abuse-of-discretion standard." Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119, 1133 (Fla. 2000); see also Trease, 768 So.2d at 1055 ; Cole v. State, 701 So.2d 845, 852 (Fla.1997).

2008See England v. State, 940 So.2d 389, 402 (Fla.2006) ("A trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial is *372 subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review."); Perez v. State, 919 So.2d 347, 363 (Fla.2005) ("[A] trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review." (quoting Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 546 (Fla. 1999))); Floyd v. State, 913 So.2d 564, 576 (Fla.2005); Ricks v. Loyola, 822 So.2d 502, 506 (Fla.2002) (holding that "trial courts have broad discretion when ruling on motions for new trial and motions for mistrial"); Ford v.

2007See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 546 (Fla.1999) (“a trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review”).

2021Analysis “A trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.” England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389, 402 (Fla. 2006).

2021Following Peterson’s direct examination, defense counsel made a motion for mistrial, which the court denied. - 54 - A motion for mistrial should only be granted “when an error is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 372 (Fla. 2008) (quoting England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389, 401-02 (Fla. 2006)). “[T]his Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. at 371.

2022See Baker v. Myers Tractor Servs., Inc., 765 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“[U]nder an abuse of discretion standard of review . . . ‘to justify reversal, it would have to be shown on appeal that the trial court clearly erred in its interpretation of the facts and the use of its judgment and not 8 merely that the court, or another fact-finder, might have made a different factual determination.’” (quoting in part Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983))).

2021See Baker v. Myers Tractor Srvs., Inc., 765 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“[U]nder an abuse of discretion standard of review . . . ‘to justify reversal, it would have to be shown on appeal that the trial court clearly erred in its interpretation of the facts and the use of its judgment and not merely that the court, or another fact-finder, might have made a different factual determination.’” (quoting Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983))).

2015Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling will be upheld unless the “judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable . . . . [D]iscretion is abused only where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Trease v. State, 768 So. 2d 1050 , 1053 n.2 (Fla. 2000) (second alteration in original) (quoting Huff v. State, 569 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 1990)).

2015Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling will be upheld unless the “judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.... [Discretion is abused only where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050 , 1053 n. 2 (Fla.2000) (second alteration in original) (quoting Huff v. State, 569 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla.1990)).

2025See Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 756 (Fla. 2001) (“In order to be entitled to a special jury instruction, [the defendant] must prove: (1) the special instruction was supported by the evidence; (2) the standard instruction did not adequately cover the theory of defense; and (3) the special instruction was a correct statement of the law and not misleading or confusing.”) (footnotes omitted); Jomolla v. State, 990 So. 2d 1234 , 1238 1 See Worley v. State, 848 So. 2d 491, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“The giving or withholding by a trial court of a requested jury instruction is reviewed under an

2024See Talley v. State, 260 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (noting that appellate courts “review the denial of a criminal defendant's request for a special jury instruction under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 755-56 (Fla. 2001) (noting that, on appeal from a conviction, the defendant “has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion in giving standard instructions” and to be entitled to a special jury instruction, the defense must establish “(1) the special instruction was supported by the evidence; (2) the standard instruction did

2024See Wabeke v. Wabeke, 31 So. 3d 793, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("The trial court's award of alimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, and where the record does not contain substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court's findings regarding the amount of alimony awarded, the appellate court will reverse the award." (quoting Farley v. Farley, 858 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003))).

2019"The trial court's award of alimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, and where the record does not contain substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court's findings regarding the amount of alimony awarded, the appellate court will reverse the award." Farley v. Farley, 858 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citation omitted); see also Crick v. Crick, 78 So. 3d 696, 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). "[A] party is entitled to alimony when that party has an actual need for alimony and the other party has the ability to pay." Turcotte v. Turcotte, 122 So. 3d 954, 956 (F

2015Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 497-98 (Fla.1999).

2004See Murphy v. Internat'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010, 1031 (Fla.2000) ("On appeal, the appellate court must ... apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing either the trial court's grant or denial of a new trial[.]"); Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla.1999) ("Regardless of whether a new trial was ordered because the verdict was excessive or inadequate or was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court must employ the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge abused his or her discretion.").

2006Generally, "the weight assigned to a mitigating circumstance is within the trial court's discretion and subject to the abuse of discretion standard." Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7, 10 (Fla.1997).

2004In Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7 (Fla.1997), we summarized our standards of review of the trial court's findings as follows: 1) Whether a particular circumstance is truly mitigating in nature is a question of law and subject to de novo review by this Court; 2) whether a mitigating circumstance has been established by the evidence in a given case is a question of fact and subject to the competent substantial evidence standard; and finally, 3) the weight assigned to a mitigating circumstance is within the trial court's discretion and subject to the abuse of discretion standard.

2019Ham v. Dunmire , 891 So. 2d 492 , 495 (Fla. 2004) ; Bank One, N.A. v. Harrod , 873 So. 2d 519 , 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("Dismissal of a complaint for non-compliance with a court order is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.").

2019Ham v. Dunmire , 891 So. 2d 492 , 495 (Fla. 2004) ; Bank One, N.A. v. Harrod , 873 So. 2d 519 , 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("Dismissal of a complaint for non-compliance with a court order is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.").

2009Moore v. State, 701 So.2d 545, 549 (Fla.1997) (“Limitation of cross-examination is subject to an abuse of discretion standard.”); accord Diaz v. State, 747 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

2008"Limitation of cross-examination is subject to an abuse of discretion standard." Moore v. State, 701 So.2d 545, 549 (Fla.1997).

2015Furthermore, the weight assigned to aggravating factors is within the trial court’s discretion and “is subject to the abuse of discretion standard.” Buzia v. State, 926 So.2d 1203, 1216 (Fla.2006).

2015“The weight to be given aggravating factors is within the discretion of the trial court, and it is subject to the abuse of discretion standard.” Buzia, 926 So.2d at 1216 .

2025See Quattrocchi v. State, 17 So. 3d 329, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (providing that an appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling permitting an amendment of the criminal information under an abuse of discretion standard); Bozeman v. State, 714 So. 2d 570, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (stating that an appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision regarding giving or withholding a proposed jury instruction under an abuse of discretion standard); § 794.0115(2), Fla. Stat. (2023) (providing that under Florida’s “Dangerous Sexual Felony Offender Act,” in order to impose a 50- year minimum mandatory s

2024A trial court’s decision to withhold “a proposed jury instruction is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard of review.” Aumuller v. State, 944 So. 2d 1137, 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Bozeman v. State, 714 So. 2d 570, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)).

2024“A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, but the court’s discretion is limited by the rules of evidence and the applicable case law.” Poole v. State, 284 So. 3d 604 , 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (quoting Horwitz v. State, 189 So. 3d 800, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)).

2020“A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, but the court’s discretion is limited by the rules of evidence and the applicable case law.” Horwitz v. State, 189 So. 3d 800, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

2024Co. v. Bennett, 291 So. 3d 605 , 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“This court and others have found such an abuse where a trial judge dismisses an action with prejudice without making express written findings of fact supporting the conclusion that the failure to obey the court order demonstrated willful or deliberate disregard.” (quotations omitted)); Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 573 (Fla. 2005) (“A lower court’s decision to impose sanctions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2024See Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 573 (Fla. 2005) (“A lower court’s decision to impose sanctions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” (citation omitted)).

2022Hernandez v. Roth, 890 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

2006See Hernandez v. Roth, 890 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) ("Matters relating to the setting of bail and the conditions attached to a defendant's pre-trial release on bail are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.

2018“This Court reviews a trial court’s assignment of weight to mitigation under an abuse of discretion standard.” Bevel v. State, 983 So. 2d 505, 521 (Fla. 2008); see also Trease v. State, 768 So. 2d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 2000) (receding from Campbell v. State, 571 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1990), “to the extent [Campbell] disallows trial courts from according no weight to a mitigating factor”).

2018"This Court reviews a trial court's assignment of weight to mitigation under an abuse of discretion standard." Bevel v. State , 983 So.2d 505 , 521 (Fla. 2008) ; see also Trease v. State , 768 So.2d 1050 , 1055 (Fla. 2000) (receding from Campbell v. State , 571 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1990), "to the extent [ Campbell ] disallows trial courts from according no weight to a mitigating factor").

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW We “employ an abuse of discretion standard of review when considering the correctness of a trial court’s grant or denial of a new trial based on unobjected-to closing argument.” Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010, 1031 (Fla. 2000). “[T]he primary concern of courts must be how the improper closing argument affected the fairness of the trial proceedings.” Id. at 129; Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

2010Because the Second District concluded that the trial court should not have conducted a fundamental error analysis, it did not reach whether the trial court abused its discretion under Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 1010, 1027-32 (Fla.2000) (explaining the standard the trial court should apply for reviewing a claim based on unpreserved error and noting that the trial court's ruling will be subject to an abuse of discretion standard on appeal).

2025See Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 756 (Fla. 2001) (“In order to be entitled to a special jury instruction, [the defendant] must prove: (1) the special instruction was supported by the evidence; (2) the standard instruction did not adequately cover the theory of defense; and (3) the special instruction was a correct statement of the law and not misleading or confusing.”) (footnotes omitted); Jomolla v. State, 990 So. 2d 1234 , 1238 1 See Worley v. State, 848 So. 2d 491, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“The giving or withholding by a trial court of a requested jury instruction is reviewed under an

2016“The giving or withholding by a trial court of a requested jury instruction is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Worley v. State, 848 So.2d 491, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

2025See Charles v. State, 311 So. 3d 283 , 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citing Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988, 1009 (Fla. 2006)); Warth v. State Farm Fire & Cas.

2024“Nevertheless, in a criminal proceeding, the trial court’s 10 discretion is limited by the defendant’s right to have the jury instructed on any valid theory of defense supported by record evidence.” Cliff Berry Inc. v. State, 116 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988, 994 (Fla. 2006)). “[A] defendant is ‘entitled to a jury instruction on his theory of the case if there is any evidence to support it,’ no matter how flimsy that evidence might be.” Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (quoting Garramone v. State, 636 So. 2d 869, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA

2023See State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla. 2002) (“The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether there has been a willful and substantial violation of a term of probation and whether such a violation has been demonstrated by the greater weight of the evidence.”); Towns v. State, 259 So. 3d 291, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding that the appellate 3 court reviews the trial court’s finding of willful and substantial violation for competent substantial evidence under an abuse of discretion standard).

2006In reviewing a trial court's order revoking probation, we must apply the abuse of discretion standard of review, which requires that we "determine whether or not the trial court acted in an arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable manner in determining that [the] violation was both willful and substantial." Carter, 835 So.2d at 262 (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)).

2019We review a trial court's decision to admit evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, Williams v. State, 967 So. 2d 735 , 747–48 (Fla. 2007), and “[d]iscretion ‘is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.’” Nolte v. State, 726 So. 2d 307, 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (quoting Canakaris v. 5 Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980)).

2018ANALYSIS We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, Williams v. State, 967 So. 2d 735, 747-48 (Fla. 2007), and “[d]iscretion ‘is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.’” Nolte v. State, 726 So. 2d 307, 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980)).

2026Phase III Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 326 So. 3d 1181 , 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (“Without a stipulation or waiver, the trial court was required to take evidence before making a fee award.” (Emphasis added)); Bath Club Entm’t, LLC, 355 So. 3d at 1001 (“Plainly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding appellees their attorney's fees and costs associated with this witness, as the trial court has discretion to accredit the qualifications and the competency of testimony of an expert witness.”); DiStefano Const., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 597 So. 2d 248, 250 (Fla. 1992) (“

2018The abuse of discretion standard is "usually with regard to the amount of an award rather than the actual entitlement to an award." Hinkley, 971 So. 2d at 956 (citing DiStefano Constr., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 597 So. 2d 248, 250 (Fla. 1992)).