Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 90.104
Total Results: 163
160 So. 3d 1251, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 676, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3320, 2014 WL 5856384
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 2014 | Docket: 2597258
Cited 121 times | Published
...In criticizing the
majority’s analysis, Justice Pariente has also neglected to consider the deference
this Court has traditionally afforded the Legislature for policy decisions that have
been made regarding the harmless error standard. In fact, we specifically
3. Section 90.104, Florida Statutes (2009), is also applicable to the instant
case....
36 So. 3d 613, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 169, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 406, 2010 WL 958069
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 2010 | Docket: 1638896
Cited 96 times | Published
...solidate "only because the trial court had ruled that the collateral crime evidence would be admitted." 447 So.2d at 245. Moreover, McWatters preserved his objection for review by obtaining a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of the evidence. See § 90.104(1), Fla....
660 So. 2d 674, 1995 WL 424173
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 1995 | Docket: 1637701
Cited 95 times | Published
...y victim about her initial description of her attacker. The claim is not properly before the Court because Finney never proffered the testimony he sought to elicit from the witness and the substance of that testimony is not apparent from the record. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
965 So. 2d 79, 2007 WL 1774414
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2007 | Docket: 1438592
Cited 59 times | Published
...While Franklin's objection to the detective's penalty phase testimony was not directed to its nature as hearsay or as a violation of his right to confront the witnesses against him, we conclude that he adequately preserved the issue through his pretrial motions. Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, covering rulings on evidence, was amended in 2003 to add the following language: "If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal." See ch.2003-259, § 1, at 1298, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
948 So. 2d 655, 2006 WL 3025668
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2006 | Docket: 1773944
Cited 56 times | Published
...At the inception of the penalty phase, Rodgers renewed the motion, and the court again denied it. As testimony began, defense counsel objected to the State's presentation of hearsay testimony through specific witnesses, and each objection was denied. Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as amended in 2003, provides that "[i]f the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal." See ch. 2003-259, § 1, at 1298, Laws of Fla. This Court adopted the statute "to the extent that it is procedural" "effective on the date it became law," which was July 1, 2003. In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence CodeSection 90.104, 914 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla.2005); see art....
524 So. 2d 660, 1988 WL 43388
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1988 | Docket: 1701389
Cited 51 times | Published
...the declarant, the physical and mental condition of the declarant, the characteristics of the event and the subject matter of the statements. Whether the necessary state of mind is present is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104....
3 So. 3d 1108, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 171, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 146, 2009 WL 217964
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 2009 | Docket: 1169294
Cited 40 times | Published
...Thereafter, he did not object or attempt to proffer what evidence any inquiry into a lab investigation would reveal. In order to predicate error, the substance of the evidence must either be apparent or be made known to the court through an offer of proof. See § 90.104, Fla....
762 So. 2d 870, 2000 WL 350558
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 6, 2000 | Docket: 472165
Cited 37 times | Published
...at 662 (quoting Edward W. Clearly, McCormick on Evidence, § 297 at 856 (3d ed.1984)); see also Rogers v. State, 660 So.2d 237, 240 (Fla.1995). The issue of "[w]hether the necessary state of mind is present is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104." Jano, 524 So.2d at 661 (quoting Charles W....
439 So. 2d 1372
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1983 | Docket: 2378158
Cited 36 times | Published
...nowledge of a secret knock to gain access to defendant's apartment. Although this statement was somewhat unresponsive, defense counsel made no motion to have the statement stricken, and therefore, cannot argue the issue for the first time on appeal. § 90.104(1)(a), Fla....
642 So. 2d 1178, 1994 WL 525078
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1994 | Docket: 549983
Cited 33 times | Published
...ffer is made to establish what was expected to be elicited if the witness had been permitted to testify. Lucas v. State, 568 So.2d 18, 22 (Fla. 1990); Salamy v. State, 509 So.2d 1201, 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). An exception to the rule is provided by section 90.104(1)(b), which states: (1) A court may predicate error, set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of admitted or excluded evidence when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected and: ........
998 So. 2d 516, 2008 WL 4355404
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 2008 | Docket: 2058051
Cited 29 times | Published
...[7] Smith gave statements to the agent on June 12, June 23, July 27, and July 31, 2003. Only his last statement was admitted at trial. [8] This issue was preserved for review with the denial of the motion; trial counsel was not required to object at the time the evidence was admitted at trial. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); In re Amendments to The Florida Evidence CodeSection 90.104, 914 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla.2005)....
581 So. 2d 121, 1991 WL 83561
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 23, 1991 | Docket: 1683858
Cited 27 times | Published
...ting instructions where appropriate, and to facilitate judicial review, parties are admonished that when objecting or responding thereto, they should state their grounds with specificity if the specific grounds are not apparent from the context. See § 90.104, Fla....
657 So. 2d 1146, 1995 WL 373745
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 1995 | Docket: 463971
Cited 22 times | Published
...erested" in the action within the meaning of the Deadperson's Statute. The district court agreed but did not reverse on this basis because it determined that Key failed to offer any proof of the substance of the Foxes' *1148 testimony as required by section 90.104, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...erested party); see Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 601 at 333-34 (1993 ed.). However, the court did not reverse on this point because it concluded that Dr. Key had failed to offer any proof as to what the Foxes would testify as required by section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...1956), in which this Court stated that it was unnecessary to make a proffer of excluded testimony in order to preserve error where the testimony is excluded on the basis that the witness is incompetent. Mr. Angrand responds that this rule no longer prevails in view of the subsequently enacted section 90.104(1)....
4 So. 3d 599, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 80, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 137, 2009 WL 196310
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 2009 | Docket: 1378800
Cited 21 times | Published
...Such evidence shall be designed to demonstrate the victim's uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community's members by the victim's death. Characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence shall not be permitted as part of victim impact evidence. [6] Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 to make a contemporaneous objection to admission or exclusion of evidence unnecessary in order to preserve the issue for appeal where a prior "definitive ruling" has been obtained....
713 So. 2d 996, 1998 WL 333429
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 1998 | Docket: 1732753
Cited 19 times | Published
...State, 660 So.2d 674, 684 (Fla.1995)(failure to proffer testimony makes it impossible to determine what effect error had on the result); see also Brundige v. State, 595 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(defendant's decision not to display his voice before the jury rendered the trial court's ruling unreviewable); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
456 So. 2d 436
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 1984 | Docket: 2449636
Cited 18 times | Published
...tencing here and were properly introduced as aggravating factors. § 921.141(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1977). Defendant's argument on appeal that the jury was emotionally inflamed was not presented at trial and, thus, was not properly preserved for appeal. § 90.104(1)(a), Fla....
964 So. 2d 785, 2007 WL 2609428
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2007 | Docket: 1689853
Cited 18 times | Published
...However, the trial court made a definitive *788 ruling on the record admitting evidence, meaning that Tillman need not have renewed his objection to preserve his claim of error for appeal. See Stokes v. State, 914 So.2d 514, 516 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
258 So. 3d 1219
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 15, 2018 | Docket: 8030090
Cited 18 times | Published
2007) ; In re Amends. to the Fla. Evidence Code-Section 90.104 , 914 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2005) ; Amends. to the
738 So. 2d 382, 1999 WL 415181
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1999 | Docket: 1502639
Cited 16 times | Published
...court. Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So.2d 829 (Fla.1957). Preservation of an error involving a ruling admitting evidence requires a timely objection which states the "specific ground of objection if the specific ground was not apparent from the context." § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
...otice of the alleged defect" in the offer of evidence. Anderson v. State, 546 So.2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The objection "lack of foundation," like its first cousin "improper predicate," is not a "specific ground of objection" within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a) so as to preserve a ruling admitting evidence for appellate review....
768 So. 2d 1100, 2000 WL 140444
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2000 | Docket: 526807
Cited 15 times | Published
...n by the trial judge and if the objection was "sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor." § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). The evidence code also requires precision in objections. Section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that a court may reverse a judgment on the basis of admitted evidence when a "substantial right" of a party is affected and there is a timely objection or motion to strike in the record "stating...
...not apparent from the context." In Jackson v. State, 738 So.2d 382, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we held that the "objection `lack of foundation,' like its first cousin `improper predicate,' is not a `specific ground of objection' within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a)." Jackson derives from the value that a trial should not be reduced to a guessing game: *1102 The general, non-specific objection in this case"lack of foundation"did not alert the state or the trial court as to what portion w...
...ing it. Defense counsel's objection at the trial did not direct the trial court's attention to that aspect of the section 90.803(6)(a) foundation which he now claims was deficient on appeal. The objection was neither "specific" within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a), nor "sufficiently precise" as required by section 924.051(1)(b)....
460 So. 2d 954
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 1984 | Docket: 1766649
Cited 15 times | Published
...Johnson, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984), this court has taken its position, see Bean v. State, 9 FLW 2082 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 28, 1984). [2] §§ 59.041 and 924.33, Fla. Stat. [3] See, e.g., Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(d) and section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes, but especially note section 90.104(3), Florida Statutes....
3 So. 3d 1078, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 106, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 147, 2009 WL 217974
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 2009 | Docket: 1653006
Cited 13 times | Published
...or statute of section 768.041). A reviewing court may "set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of [erroneously] admitted or excluded evidence" only "when a substantial right of the party [appealing] is adversely affected." § 90.104(1), Fla....
422 So. 2d 336
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1982 | Docket: 1739924
Cited 11 times | Published
...It is axiomatic that failure to proffer what the excluded evidence would have revealed precludes appellate consideration of the alleged error. Cason v. Smith, 365 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. Ellis, 143 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). The Florida Evidence Code, Section 90.104, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: (1) A court may predicate error, set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of admitted or excluded evidence when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected and: ......
...In each of those decisions, the relevancy was apparent from the question being asked or from the proffer that was made. [3] We therefore find that the absence of such a proffer in the present case precludes our review of the alleged error. The appellant, in apparent reliance upon Section 90.104(3), Florida Statutes (1979) [4] and Davis v....
...t must reverse. We disagree. This section can hardly be applied where the party fails to make an offer of proof since, as a result of this failure, there is an absence of material in the record to disclose the error. See Law Revision Council Note to § 90.104(3), Fla....
...State, supra , (cross-examination of police officer for police brutality in making the defendant's arrest); Webb v. State, supra , (proffer that defendant was being framed by the police department because of a pending civil suit for false arrest). [4] Section 90.104(3): Nothing in this section shall preclude a court from taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantial rights, even though such errors were not brought to the attention of the trial judge.
580 So. 2d 309, 1991 WL 87226
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1991 | Docket: 407315
Cited 11 times | Published
...testimony was not of that nature. See Francis v. State, 512 So.2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Likewise, we do not agree that the defendant's general objection to such obviously impermissible testimony did not preserve the issue for appellate review. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
454 So. 2d 681
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 1984 | Docket: 444504
Cited 11 times | Published
...We entirely agree and reverse for a new trial. First, the claimed errors were properly preserved for appellate review. The plaintiff strenuously objected to the offending questions both on specific grounds and on grounds which were apparent from the context in which they were made. See § 90.104(1)(a), Fla....
599 So. 2d 158, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1123
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 1992 | Docket: 1483403
Cited 11 times | Published
...combines to produce an "unwaiver" of that which a defendant waived by failing to object to the evidence at the time it was offered at trial. Extensive research has uncovered no support for this novel proposition either within or without this state. Section 90.104(1)(a) Florida Statutes, requires a timely objection in order to preserve a point for appeal....
64 So. 3d 1232, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 247, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1283, 2011 WL 2224777
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 2011 | Docket: 1443275
Cited 10 times | Published
...Even if we were to agree that a seizure occurred, it was not unreasonable in this case for the police to isolate Corona for his own protection. Moreover, we conclude that his later arrest was lawful. [8] Corona's trial was conducted before the July 1, 2003, effective date of the provision of section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), that a renewed objection when evidence is offered at trial is not necessary if there has been a prior "definitive ruling" excluding the evidence.
876 So. 2d 599, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1359
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 2004 | Docket: 1671122
Cited 10 times | Published
...Moreover, the victim did not testify to any specific past events or provide details of the marital discord between Crumbley and herself. We conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneous testimony contributed to the guilty verdict. We are aware of the recently adopted provision of section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2003), which provides in pertinent part that "[i]f the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of p...
...cerning amendments to the Florida Evidence Code that were made by the Legislature over the previous four years). Although it is sometimes difficult to discern the difference between rules of substance and procedure, we conclude that the provision of section 90.104 under consideration is procedural....
915 So. 2d 264, 2005 WL 3299368
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 2005 | Docket: 1310874
Cited 10 times | Published
...Imhof's testimony as to why a witness might not recall a sexual assault incident that occurred during childhood. Among other reasons Dr. Imhof gave for failure to recall, he testified that S.W.'s lack of memory would be consistent with survival of a traumatic event. Florida Statute § 90.104(1)(a) provides that a reviewing court may reverse based on wrongfully admitted evidence only where there is a timely objection or motion to strike "stating the specific ground of objection if the specific ground was not apparent from the context." In this case, appellant's objection at trial to Dr. Imhof's *269 testimony was that the psychologist had not interviewed S.W. and that his testimony was therefore "theoretical." This argument was not sufficiently specific or precise within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a) and different than the relevancy and improper bolstering grounds urged on appeal....
785 So. 2d 578, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4747, 2001 WL 356946
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 11, 2001 | Docket: 450187
Cited 10 times | Published
...ary rulings. I. EVIDENTIARY RULINGS A trial court's error in the acceptance or rejection of evidence does not necessarily constitute harmful error. Only "when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected" may a court grant a new trial. See § 90.104(1), Fla....
...Thus, contrary to the representations made to the trial court at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the document was not published to the jury over the objection of Local Contractors. The error, if any, was not preserved and the trial court improperly based its *582 order granting a new trial on this ground. See § 90.104(1)(a), Fla....
884 So. 2d 1087, 2004 WL 2347598
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 2004 | Docket: 1281832
Cited 9 times | Published
...Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). In this case, we affirm on the merits of the issue and not for lack of a record. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. STONE, J., and BRYAN, BEN L., JR., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] This case was tried prior to the 2003 amendment of section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which dispensed with the necessity of a contemporaneous objection at trial where a prior definitive ruling on the record has been made on the objection.
441 So. 2d 660
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1983 | Docket: 1698937
Cited 9 times | Published
...Shanklin's testimony. Such a proffer is not necessary in cases where the proffer would be a useless ceremony or where the court indicates that such offer would be unavailing or that the witness is incompetent. Seeba v. Bowden, 86 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1956); § 90.104(1)(b)....
536 So. 2d 260, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2459, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5035, 1988 WL 117586
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 1988 | Docket: 2553424
Cited 9 times | Published
...w. At trial, appellant's counsel objected to the expert's testimony as hearsay in a motion in limine and during the expert's testimony. The court denied the motion and overruled counsel's objections. Counsel's actions preserved the issue for review. § 90.104(1)(a), (2), Fla....
951 So. 2d 939, 2007 WL 675354
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2007 | Docket: 1682581
Cited 9 times | Published
...To preserve "an error involving a ruling admitting evidence requires a timely objection which states the specific ground of objection if the `specific ground was not apparent from the context.'" Jackson v. State, 738 So.2d 382, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
632 So. 2d 122, 1994 WL 33646
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 1994 | Docket: 1514005
Cited 9 times | Published
...Essentially, appellants had a right to present evidence that income should be imputed to appellee, but the trial court refused to hear the evidence. Although this was error, we cannot determine whether this error was reversible, because appellants made no proffer of the evidence. See § 90.104(1), Fla....
943 So. 2d 976
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2006 | Docket: 1526824
Cited 9 times | Published
...court's error was harmful. An appellate court may "set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of [improperly] admitted or excluded evidence" *979 only "when a substantial right of the party [appealing] is adversely affected." § 90.104(1), Fla....
575 So. 2d 699, 1991 WL 14999
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1991 | Docket: 1731123
Cited 8 times | Published
...Any conclusion which might be made by this court, or by the trial court, for that matter, as to its alleged materiality to the issue of consent in this case, and the harmfulness, if any, of its exclusion, is therefore a matter of pure conjecture. See, section 90.104, Florida Statutes (erroneous evidentiary ruling excluding evidence may be reversed where substance of evidence excluded is made known by offer of proof or is apparent from question asked); Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 104.3 (2d Ed....
483 So. 2d 858, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 521
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 1986 | Docket: 455939
Cited 8 times | Published
...going to be concerning the officer's reputation, we do not think this error was preserved on appeal. Whitted v. State, 362 So.2d 668 (Fla. 1978); Ketrow v. State, 414 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Llanos v. State, 401 So.2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Section 90.104 of the Evidence Code provides: (1) A court may predicate error, set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of admitted or excluded evidence when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected and: (b) Wh...
661 So. 2d 1252, 1995 WL 621753
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 1995 | Docket: 1526497
Cited 7 times | Published
...In particular, when the point on appeal challenges a trial court ruling admitting certain evidence at trial, as here, the party is confined on appeal to the ground urged for exclusion at trial and is not permitted to raise on appeal new grounds for exclusion not presented to the trial court. See § 90.104, Fla....
450 So. 2d 606
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 1984 | Docket: 1729147
Cited 7 times | Published
...*609 There is a long-standing rule in Florida that requires the party against whom a ruling of exclusion has been made, to make a proffer of the proposed testimony so that the trial and the appellate courts may be able to evaluate its weight, relevancy and competency in determining the effect of its exclusion. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
881 So. 2d 1137, 2004 WL 1584336
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2004 | Docket: 1466241
Cited 7 times | Published
...GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Black flexible rubber cord of the type used to install screens. [2] These are the names of other acquaintances of the victim. [3] See, e.g., Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Merchant, 652 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); § 90.104(1)(a), Fla....
727 So. 2d 1033, 1999 WL 76059
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1999 | Docket: 1438280
Cited 7 times | Published
...However, in this case the substance of the article was not made known to the trial court. Neither the article nor testimony establishing the predicate of authoritativeness was proffered by Dr. Fravel. By failing to make such a proffer, Dr. Fravel waived his right to appellate review of the trial court's error. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
922 So. 2d 1013, 2006 WL 304555
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 2006 | Docket: 1683369
Cited 7 times | Published
...rved ruling on the motion. That ruling was never made, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that Tolbert subsequently pressed the trial court for a *1017 ruling or objected when the testimony was introduced. The State notes the provision of section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2003), which was amended by the 2003 Legislature to provide in pertinent part that "[i]f the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party nee...
...y to adopt rules of procedure. The State is far too dismissive of the amendment's application here because the court has specifically adopted it, effective on the date the Legislature said it became law. In re Amendments to The Florida Evidence Code-Section 90.104, 914 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla.2005) ("After considering the Committee's original and supplemental reports and the comments filed, we adopt chapter 2003-259, section 1, as provided in the appendix to this opinion to the extent that it is procedural....
437 So. 2d 711
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 1983 | Docket: 1256927
Cited 7 times | Published
...At the heart of Lyons' argument is whether consent is a defense to criminal aggravated battery and whether the excluded testimony was relevant to consent. First, we have determined that this point was sufficiently preserved in the record to allow this court to review it. Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981)....
870 So. 2d 15, 2003 WL 21766500
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2003 | Docket: 1698100
Cited 7 times | Published
...were not hearsay because they were offered only to show their effect upon defendant's state of mind and not truth of matter asserted). However, the issue was not adequately preserved for appeal because defense counsel never proffered the answer. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
531 So. 2d 401, 1988 WL 96450
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1988 | Docket: 2508934
Cited 6 times | Published
...In other words, the trial court failed to recognize discretion existed. This was error. Nonetheless, the state argues the defendant failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal by not proffering the testimony he would have presented as surrebuttal evidence in accordance with Section 90.104(1) of the Evidence Code. [1] *403 While ordinarily the adversely affected party must proffer the excluded evidence to the court, a proffer is unnecessary where the substance of the excluded testimony is apparent from the context within which it was offered. § 90.104(1), Fla....
...y harmless. The convictions of appellant Reaves are affirmed. The convictions of appellant Soto of trafficking and possession of a firearm are reversed, and Case Number 87-1911 is remanded for a new trial. ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 90.104(1) states: (1) A court may predicate error, set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of admitted or excluded evidence when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected and: (a) When the ruling is one...
939 So. 2d 298, 2006 WL 2956514
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2006 | Docket: 2533136
Cited 6 times | Published
...s-examination. Neither by his questions to Kyzer nor by an offer of proof did defense counsel establish facts that would have justified the proposed cross-examination. The absence of an adequate proffer precludes our review of the alleged error. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
875 So. 2d 673, 2004 WL 1091140
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2004 | Docket: 1283987
Cited 6 times | Published
...See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32 (Fla.1985); Filan v. State, 768 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Jackson v. State, 738 *676 So.2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Specifically, the State contends that Appellant's objection was neither "specific" within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001); nor "sufficiently precise," as required by section 924.051(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), to be preserved....
963 So. 2d 747, 2007 WL 1753570
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2007 | Docket: 1697316
Cited 6 times | Published
...5th DCA 2004); Layman v. State, 728 So.2d 814, 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Smith v. State, 606 So.2d 641, 643 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Reyes v. State, 580 So.2d 309, 310 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Anderson v. State, 546 So.2d 65, 67 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); see also § 90.104(1)(a), (b), Fla....
...factual basis for entry of the plea, having reviewed the affidavit. Sir, I'm going to find you guilty, adjudicate you guilty, and sentence you to the time served in custody. THE STATE: And that's over the State's objection, Your Honor. [2] Sections 90.104(1)(a) and (1)(b) provide, in pertinent part: A court may predicate error ....
944 So. 2d 1189, 2006 WL 3733842
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2006 | Docket: 1649808
Cited 6 times | Published
...harge. See § 39.01(43), Fla. Stat. (2002). [3] The State also argues that the defendant failed to preserve the issue. We disagree. The issue was raised in a pre-trial hearing, and defense counsel twice objected to the admission of the evidence. See § 90.104(1), Fla....
616 So. 2d 1129, 1993 WL 107980
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 1993 | Docket: 1367662
Cited 6 times | Published
...y, could the County be sued, and second, if the County were sued because of the acts of a police officer, would that reflect badly on the officer's record. As a preliminary matter, it is doubtful that the point is preserved for appellate review. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
22 So. 3d 120, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15806, 2009 WL 3365261
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 2009 | Docket: 1119459
Cited 5 times | Published
...Fleisher's report marked and made part of the record. In this case, however, the substance of the report was sufficiently communicated in the text of the motion in limine and in the statements by counsel to the county court judge in argument on the motion in limine. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
830 So. 2d 177, 2002 WL 31355518
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 2002 | Docket: 471367
Cited 5 times | Published
..." Instead of hearsay or other specific objection, Couzo's objection at trial was, "There's no foundation." "The objection `lack of foundation,' like its first cousin `improper predicate,' is not a `specific ground of objection' within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a) so as to preserve a ruling admitting evidence for appellate review." Jackson v....
79 So. 3d 755, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18090, 2011 WL 5554531
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 2011 | Docket: 2412998
Cited 5 times | Published
...State, 416 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (same). Unfair prejudice within the meaning of section 90.403 does not arise from relevant inquiries directed at experts offering contrary opinions relevant to a material issue at trial. [4] In addition to section 59.041, section 90.104, Florida Statutes (2009) provides that a court may reverse a judgment or grant a new trial on the basis of admitted or excluded evidence "when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected" and the point is properly preserved in the trial court. The primary contribution of the statute to the law is its requirement of preservation. Section 90.104 adds little to harmless error analysis; if admitted or excluded evidence does not adversely affect "a substantial right of a party," its admission cannot be a "miscarriage of justice" under section 59.041 Nonetheless, some cases involv...
528 So. 2d 15, 1988 WL 50675
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 1988 | Docket: 1367920
Cited 5 times | Published
...Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence §§ 103.1, 105.1 (1987). Weinstein's Evidence § 104[13], discusses at length the adaptation of Federal Rule 104 by the various states. At least three states, Washington, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, have provisions virtually identical to section 90.104(1), omitting the last sentence found in Federal Rule 104(a)....
960 So. 2d 762, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 500, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1231, 2007 WL 2002629
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2007 | Docket: 1406563
Cited 5 times | Published
...ion 1, Laws of Florida. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. The amendments at issue are those enacted by the Legislature since this Court last considered amendments to the Evidence Code. See In re Amendments to Fla. Evidence CodeSection 90.104, 914 So.2d 940 (Fla....
998 So. 2d 625, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 1442, 2008 WL 313606
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 2008 | Docket: 1341845
Cited 5 times | Published
...not been committed." Damico v. Lundberg, 379 So.2d 964, 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that judgments should not be reversed except where "the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice"); § 90.104(1), Fla....
780 So. 2d 205, 2001 WL 85521
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2001 | Docket: 1298178
Cited 5 times | Published
...Just as Moyer contends, the record reveals that the trial court and counsel for both parties knew that the videotaped testimony of Dr. Slysh was trial testimony. Therefore, any objections should have been made at the time the question was asked and the grounds therefor should have been specifically stated. See § 90.104(1), Fla....
914 So. 2d 514, 2005 WL 3116094
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 23, 2005 | Docket: 1781721
Cited 4 times | Published
...NOTES [1] According to the State, the fact that Stokes was "out of place, [because] that was not his corner, his corner was another location," was relevant to prove motive. [2] A contemporaneous objection was not made each time the prosecutor asked a witness about DUF. However, section 90.104(1)(b) states "[i]f the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal." § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
460 So. 2d 915
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 1984 | Docket: 1766942
Cited 4 times | Published
...ovision of the sentence for retention of jurisdiction under that section is properly stricken and the sentence, as modified, is properly affirmed. NOTES [1] As to erroneous rulings admitting evidence the contemporaneous objection rule is embodied in section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which limits reversals to errors admitting evidence when a timely objection or a motion to strike appear on the record stating the specific ground of objection if it is not apparent from the context....
714 So. 2d 467, 1998 WL 117234
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 1998 | Docket: 1513764
Cited 4 times | Published
...ruction. See, e.g., Tilley v. Broward Hosp. Dist., 458 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). I also note that plaintiff's objection to the veterinarian assistant's testimony concerning Dr. Hugo's cat handling abilities was not properly preserved under section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), which *469 requires an objection "stating the specific ground of objection." The stated bases for the objection were the lack of a foundation and that the question called for an expert opinion....
447 So. 2d 369
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1984 | Docket: 1312118
Cited 4 times | Published
...l court. As with other evidentiary matters, the admission and consideration of affidavits is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and no error may be predicated on such admission absent a timely objection or motion to strike. See Section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes....
847 So. 2d 558, 2003 WL 21339448
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 2003 | Docket: 1290159
Cited 4 times | Published
...the declarant, the physical and mental condition of the declarant, the characteristics of the event and the subject matter of the statements. Whether the necessary state of mind is present is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104....
210 So. 3d 1231
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2017 | Docket: 60294194
Cited 4 times | Published
2007); In re Amends. to Fla. Evidence Code—Section 90.104, 914 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2005); Amends. to Fla
860 So. 2d 436, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12741, 2003 WL 22002564
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 2003 | Docket: 454798
Cited 4 times | Published
...y constitute harmful error. See Midtown Enters., Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc., 785 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). It is only "when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected" that a trial court may grant a new trial on this basis. § 90.104(1), Fla....
17 So. 3d 1270, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14099, 2009 WL 3018180
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 2009 | Docket: 1141425
Cited 3 times | Published
...hout renewing the objection, as in Gootee v. Clevinger, 778 So.2d 1005, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Appellant's claim that the court erred in denying its motion in limine to prevent the mention of surveillance evidence was also not properly preserved. Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides: "If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for *1272 appeal." See also Tillman v....
581 So. 2d 619, 1991 WL 92958
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 1991 | Docket: 2556829
Cited 3 times | Published
...of the child due to meningitis, we conclude that appellant's failure to proffer evidence of the child's decreased life expectancy is fatal to his claim on appeal. The Florida Evidence Code requires a proffer under these circumstances. See Fla. Stat. § 90.104(1)(b) (1987)....
528 So. 2d 461, 1988 WL 67771
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1988 | Docket: 1367664
Cited 3 times | Published
...h, although clumsily expressed, were sufficient to suggest the contention that any collateral embarrassing incident in the witness's past may not properly be the subject of cross-examination on the claim that it affects the issue of credibility. See § 90.104(1)(a), Fla....
980 So. 2d 1105, 2008 WL 372809
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2008 | Docket: 1735734
Cited 3 times | Published
...We disagree with the state's argument that when appellant's counsel merely said "objection" the lack of specificity waived the error, as it had been discussed at a sidebar conference. Woods v. State, 733 So.2d 980, 987 (Fla.1999) ("vague" objection preserved hearsay issue when basis was clear from context); § 90.104(1)(a), Fla....
866 So. 2d 127, 2004 WL 384146
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 2004 | Docket: 1274028
Cited 3 times | Published
...His counsel acknowledges that the motion to suppress, which was denied before trial, was not renewed during trial, and was therefore waived under our case law. State v. Gaines, 770 So.2d 1221 (Fla.2000). A recent statutory amendment, however, purports to eliminate the need to renew the objection at trial. Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, was amended by the 2003 legislature to provide: *128 If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal....
554 So. 2d 600, 1989 WL 153644
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1989 | Docket: 1693369
Cited 3 times | Published
...Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 302.1 (2d ed. 1984). The presumption of survivorship in this case was not rebutted. As a result, the trial court erred in ruling that the funds remaining in the two joint bank accounts upon the death of the depositor were assets of the estate. NOTES [1] See Section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987)....
565 So. 2d 387, 1990 WL 112508
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 1990 | Docket: 1725966
Cited 3 times | Published
...[3] The defendant did not make a contemporaneous objection to the improper testimony and the sole issue we address is whether the failure to make a proper objection bars appellate review of this error in admitting evidence. Consistent with the usual law on this point, section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a court may reverse a judgment on the basis of an erroneous ruling admitting evidence when a substantial right is adversely affected and a timely objection appears on the record stating the specific ground of objection if the specific ground is not apparent from the context....
...d as the rule requires but, more fundamentally, there is usually no specific or express ruling by the trial court as to the admissibility of the evidence, and if there is no ruling, there is no error by the trial court justifying reversal on appeal. Section 90.104(3) provides that nothing in that section precludes an appellate court from taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantial rights even though those errors were not brought to the attention of the trial judge....
585 So. 2d 405, 1991 WL 167312
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 27, 1991 | Docket: 1293815
Cited 3 times | Published
...The appellee mother contends that because the excluded testimony was not proffered, that we cannot determine the propriety of excluding the evidence. It is true, as a general rule, that if a proffer is not made, an appellate court cannot determine the propriety of excluding the evidence. However, section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides: (1) A court may predicate error, set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of admitted or excluded evidence when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected and: (b...
763 So. 2d 549, 2000 WL 1055793
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 2000 | Docket: 1681678
Cited 3 times | Published
...the declarant, the physical and mental condition of the declarant, the characteristics of the event and the subject matter of the statements. Whether the necessary state of mind is present is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104....
701 So. 2d 610, 1997 WL 716811
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 1997 | Docket: 1447208
Cited 2 times | Published
...It was DOT that objected to a proffer during trial. The argument that a proffer must be admitted into evidence is patently wrong due to the very nature of a proffer. A proffer is preservation for record purposes of excluded evidence. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.450(b); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
656 So. 2d 587, 1995 WL 366715
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 1995 | Docket: 2551733
Cited 2 times | Published
...The trial court took the testimony of trial counsel, but declined to hear several other witnesses subpoenaed by defendant. The trial court also refused to allow a proffer of the excluded witnesses' testimony. The court should have allowed a proffer so as to permit defendant to complete his record. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
1 So. 3d 254, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 42, 2009 WL 18673
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 2009 | Docket: 1172687
Cited 2 times | Published
...The state points out that no proffer was made as to the minor's answer to the question. Appellant's response is that there is an exception to the requirement that excluded evidence must be proffered, where the substance of the excluded testimony is apparent from the context in which it is offered. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
630 So. 2d 646, 1994 WL 6401
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 1994 | Docket: 481335
Cited 2 times | Published
...with decedent. [3] , [4] We do not reverse on this point, however, because there was no offer of proof of the substance of the Foxes' testimony, nor was the substance of the proposed testimony otherwise apparent. The Evidence Code provides, in part: 90.104 Rulings on Evidence....
...stantial rights, even though such errors were not brought to the attention of the trial judge. (Emphasis added). See generally Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 104.3. [5] The ruling below was one which excluded evidence within the meaning of section 90.104....
...For that proposition he relies on the pre-Evidence Code case of In re Estate of Lynagh, 177 So.2d 256, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), which in turn cites Seeba v. Bowden, 86 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1956). The Evidence Code has been enacted since those cases were decided, and section 90.104 is now controlling to the extent of any inconsistency. Section 90.104 requires an offer of proof, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here....
...In so ruling, the court said "[s]uch a proffer is not necessary in cases where the proffer would be a useless ceremony or where the court indicates that such offer would be unavailing or that the witness is incompetent. Seeba v. Bowden, 86 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1956); § 90.104(1)(b)." Wright v....
...t the witness is incompetent. He reasons that under the rule stated in Wright, no proffer was necessary. In our view Wright 's reference to a finding that the witness is incompetent is dictum. Wright specifically cites the Evidence Code paragraph 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes in support of its decision....
...It is a fair inference that in Wright the substance of the excluded opinion of the plaintiff's medical malpractice expert sufficiently appeared on the face of the record, so as to render a more detailed proffer unnecessary. For that reason the court explicitly relied on paragraph 90.104(1)(b). We therefore conclude that the reference to incompetency of the witness is dictum under the facts of Wright. In the present case, we hold that the Evidence Code provision is controlling. Section 90.104 required a proffer of the excluded testimony....
156 So. 3d 1052, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 65, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 202, 2015 WL 463524
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2015 | Docket: 2631959
Cited 2 times | Published
...However, Carr failed to preserve these issues
for our review.
We have repeatedly held that “to raise an error on appeal, a
contemporaneous objection must be made at the trial level when the alleged error
occurred.” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998). While section
90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that, “[i]f the court has made a
definitive ruling on the record admitting ....
728 So. 2d 244, 1998 WL 567867
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 1998 | Docket: 1673885
Cited 2 times | Published
...must go to the foundation of case, the merits of the cause of action, or extinguish party's right to fair trial); Wasden v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 474 So.2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); KMart Corp. v. Hayes, 707 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). See also § 90.104(1)(a), Fla....
704 So. 2d 161, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13671, 1997 WL 757163
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 1997 | Docket: 1706008
Cited 2 times | Published
...The trial court properly sustained the state's objection to this testimony. The proffer of testimony failed to demonstrate a sufficient connection to the law enforcement agency handling the undercover operation in this case. Additionally, the proffer was too vague under section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), to preserve a hearsay issue whether the state can be a "party" within the meaning of section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes (1995), so that a criminal defendant can introduce as an admission the out-of-court statement of a member of a law enforcement agency involved in his case....
665 So. 2d 241, 1995 WL 521121
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 1995 | Docket: 1351995
Cited 1 times | Published
...cross-examination of the defense expert witness, [1] and that reversal of the judgment is required. [2] Because the issue may recur on remand, we also address how to make an offer of proof where the trial court excludes documents from evidence. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
...trial without violating the order in limine. We disagree. When the trial court excludes evidence, an offer of proof is necessary (with some exceptions not applicable here) if the claimed evidentiary error is to be preserved for appellate review. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
...This makes a record of the excluded evidence available to an appellate court so it can determine if error was committed in excluding the evidence and also makes it available for post trial motions." Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Trawick's Florida Practice & Procedure § 22-10, at 333 (1994) (footnote omitted); see also § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
439 So. 2d 1372, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3215
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1983 | Docket: 64600479
Cited 1 times | Published
argue the issue for the first time on appeal. § 90.-104(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). The remaining statements
476 So. 2d 1381, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2401
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 1985 | Docket: 1277514
Cited 1 times | Published
...Rulings on evidentiary matters are within the sound discretion of the trial court and no error may be predicated on the exclusion of evidence unless its substance was made known to the court by offer of proof. O'Quinn v. Seibels, Bruce & Co., 447 So.2d 369, 370 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983)....
273 So. 3d 43
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 2019 | Docket: 15688834
Cited 1 times | Published
substantial right of the party is adversely affected.” § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). “When a defendant’s sole
242 So. 3d 1172
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2018 | Docket: 6333480
Cited 1 times | Published
did not avail himself of that opportunity. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016)
738 So. 2d 410, 1999 WL 420115
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 1999 | Docket: 1502783
Cited 1 times | Published
...Because our earlier denial was clearly a ruling on the merits, it became the law of the case. JUDGMENT and SENTENCE AFFIRMED. HARRIS and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 794.011(5), Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. [3] We reject as waived Mr. Smith's other claim of error. See § 90.104(1)(a), Fla....
149 So. 3d 39, 2014 WL 2957473, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10109
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 2014 | Docket: 337
Cited 1 times | Published
...Motions in limine can serve an important function in streamlining a
trial. The excessive use of them, however, can clog the docket and become
a trap. Boilerplate motions in limine filed early in a case have dramatically
increased in the years since the amendment of section 90.104, Florida
Statutes in 2003....
...testimony in order to preserve the issue for appeal. Compare Philip Morris
USA, Inc. v. Tullo, 121 So. 3d 595, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
(contemporaneous objection required to preserve evidentiary issue for
appeal when trial court does not make a definitive pre-trial ruling), with
§ 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
...restrict itself to
the record as understood by all the parties.
If the record does not clearly support a finding that the motion in limine
has been vacated, then appellant did preserve the record on the violation
of requests 24, 34, and 36. “Section 90.104(1) was amended in 2003 to
provide that, ‘If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record
admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not
renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.’”
Charles W....
...It would be
unfair to require appellant to object to evidence introduced in violation of
the previously-granted requests in limine—specifically 24, 34, and 36—
where the record does not clearly support that the trial court vacated the
order granting those requests. Appellant would correctly rely on section
90.104(1), which states that appellant need not object in order to preserve
the issue, where the trial court has previously granted requests within the
motion in limine and where the “vacating” of the entire motion in limine is
not clear to the parties....
211 So. 3d 214, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 44
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 2017 | Docket: 60262558
Cited 1 times | Published
proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.” § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). Both this Court and
537 So. 2d 677, 1989 WL 4182
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 1989 | Docket: 2557932
Cited 1 times | Published
...atently insufficient. See Nava v. State, 450 So.2d 606, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), cause dismissed, 508 So.2d 14 (Fla. 1987); Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Ellis, 143 So.2d 550, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Green v. Hood, 120 So.2d 223, 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
555 So. 2d 437, 1990 WL 2098
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 1990 | Docket: 1724714
Cited 1 times | Published
...First, we hold that the trial court did not err in excluding as hearsay two out-of-court statements relating to defendant's alibi defense. No offer of proof was made to indicate what the excluded evidence would have revealed. The Florida Evidence Code, Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides: (1) A court may predicate error, set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of admitted or excluded evidence when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected and: *...
68 So. 3d 374, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13494, 2011 WL 3754664
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 2011 | Docket: 2358812
Cited 1 times | Published
...impeach the victim. Although he did not attempt to call the prosecutor during the trial, given the trial court's definitive ruling outside the jury's presence, any such attempt would have been futile and was not necessary to preserve the error. See § 90.104, Fla....
928 So. 2d 386, 2006 WL 888056
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 2006 | Docket: 1406059
Cited 1 times | Published
...Because of the procedural posture of the case at the time of the ruling by the lower court, to preserve the issue for review, the defense was not called upon to lay a predicate for the admission of the evidence, only to proffer the substance of the excluded evidence. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
252 So. 3d 859
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 2018 | Docket: 7878465
Published
The issue is preserved for our review, see section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2017), but we find no
150 So. 3d 827, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16801, 2014 WL 5149104
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 15, 2014 | Docket: 1447723
Published
...permitting hearsay testimony regarding the amount due under the note,
such error was harmless and is not grounds for a new trial unless a
substantial right of a party was adversely affected. See Bulkmatic Transp.
Co. v. Taylor, 860 So. 2d 436, 447-48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); § 90.104(1),
Fla....
148 So. 3d 819
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2014 | Docket: 1443081
Published
...lified for the
business records exception set out in section 90.803(6)(a), Florida Statutes. During
the bench trial, defense counsel continually objected to the hearsay evidence and
eventually requested and was granted a standing objection. While section 90.104,
Florida Statutes, requires “a specific ground of objection if the specific ground was
not apparent from the context” to challenge the admission of evidence, the specific
ground was apparent from the context of counsel’s repeated objections in this trial.
Section 90.104 does not require “magic words” to preserve a hearsay objection, so
long as the trial court is informed of the perceived error....
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 1, 2019 | Docket: 16275550
Published
6 preserve a claim of error for appeal.” § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). However, failure to object
257 So. 3d 624
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2018 | Docket: 64691027
Published
state of mind, which the court refused); see also § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (explaining that a court may
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 23, 2019 | Docket: 15665581
Published
- 11 - Amendments to Fla. Evidence Code—Section 90.104, 914 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 2005) (adopting
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2018 | Docket: 6326625
Published
counsel, so the argument was unpreserved. See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2017). Trial counsel’s potential
493 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41652, 2007 WL 1557484
District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2007 | Docket: 2357183
Published
...only to the lesser 2d degree felony burglary with a maximum possible sentence of no more than fifteen (15) years under F.S. § 775.082(c). Moore's second argument for "harmless error" is rejected for the reason stated by Johnson. THE PROFFER Citing Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Moore claims that "Davis's testimony was not sufficiently proffered at trial" because "Davis did not personally testify at the proffer." Moore failed to assert this objection at any moment before the present motion to alter or amend....
...peal included no objection to the proffer, and no earlier paper in this habeas corpus case preserves any objection to the sufficiency of Johnson's proffer of Davis's testimony. Any supposed defect in the proffer is waived. However, no defect exists. Section 90.104(1)(b) states in pertinent part: A court may predicate error, set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of admitted or excluded evidence when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected and: ....
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2025 | Docket: 69807055
Published
to preserve a claim of error for appeal." § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2023). At one time, the law held
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2022 | Docket: 63127978
Published
propriety of admissibility ripe for review. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2021) (“If the court has made
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 2022 | Docket: 63372547
Published
609; see also id. at 609 n.6 (explaining that section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, which “was amended in
694 So. 2d 157, 1997 WL 292661
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 1997 | Docket: 2531176
Published
...We find no error in the trial judge's failure to conduct a competency hearing. See Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla.1980); Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla.1978). Any error in limiting the testimony of the defense psychiatric expert was not preserved for appeal, because of the failure to proffer the testimony. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2019 | Docket: 15855446
Published
brought to the court’s attention.”); see also § 90.104(3), Fla. Stat. (2019) (noting that a court may
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 2025 | Docket: 70571738
Published
provided there is a timely, specific objection. § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Because Mr. Miller did not specifically
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2025 | Docket: 70739450
Published
review by raising it in a motion in limine. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2023) ("If the court has
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2024 | Docket: 68120492
Published
This criminal appeal shows the tension between section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, and precedent from the
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 2020 | Docket: 17370646
Published
defendant was entitled to a new trial pursuant to section 90.104, Florida Statutes, due to the “exclusion” of
142 So. 3d 901, 2014 WL 2957498, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10113
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 2014 | Docket: 237
Published
...ut it made no
definitive ruling. “If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record
admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not
renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.”
§ 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2014 | Docket: 378012
Published
...this issue
was not properly preserved for review because Kevin did not object when the State
offered the evidence during trial, citing Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562, 566 (Fla. 1988).
However, the State's argument ignores the plain language of section 90.104(1)(b),
Florida Statutes (2012), added in 2003, which provides that when the court has made a
definitive pretrial ruling on the record either admitting or excluding evidence, "a party
need not renew an objection or offer of proof to...
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 2024 | Docket: 68138182
Published
2d DCA 2006) (alterations in original) (quoting § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2006)). However, having concluded
973 So. 2d 1180, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 57, 2008 WL 45522
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 2008 | Docket: 1688571
Published
...o unchallenged so it may later be used for a tactical advantage. Mr. and Mrs. Williams contend, however, that they preserved this error because they sought a ruling on the inadmissibility of the prior law suit by a motion in limine. We do not agree. Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2006), discusses rulings on evidence....
...court reserved ruling on the motion. A final ruling was never made by the trial court, and there was nothing in the record to suggest that the defendant subsequently either pressed for a ruling or objected when the testimony was introduced. Based on section 90.104(1), we held that since the trial court did not either at trial or prior to trial make a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding the evidence, the defendant was required to make a contemporaneous objection to the evidence in order to preserve the claim of error for appeal....
972 So. 2d 1047, 2008 WL 183347
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 23, 2008 | Docket: 2562407
Published
...on in precluding the admission of the evidence. See Moore v. State, 701 So.2d 545, 549 (Fla.1997) (holding that on review by an appellate court, a trial court's limitation of cross-examination is subject to an abuse of discretion standard); see also § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
238 So. 3d 845
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2018 | Docket: 6318524
Published
counsel, so the argument was unpreserved. See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2017). Trial counsel’s potential
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 26, 2025 | Docket: 69674167
Published
specific ground was not apparent from the context.” § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023). “[A]ppellate courts
426 So. 2d 1292, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18712
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 1983 | Docket: 64595181
Published
asked,” an offer of proof was unnecessary. See § 90.-104(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1981). Reversed and remanded
79 So. 3d 921, 2012 WL 511441, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2453
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 2012 | Docket: 441544
Published
...[1] We conclude that this issue was not preserved for appellate review. Normally, a motion in limine and a definitive ruling are sufficient to preserve an argument for appeal without the need to contemporaneously object when the evidence is admitted at trial. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
264 So. 3d 225
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2018 | Docket: 64704559
Published
obligation to control the admission of evidence. § 90.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2015) (requiring judges to "conduct
264 So. 3d 225
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2018 | Docket: 64704560
Published
obligation to control the admission of evidence. § 90.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2015) (requiring judges to "conduct
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2018 | Docket: 8455094
Published
obligation to control the admission of evidence. § 90.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2015) (requiring judges to “conduct
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2021 | Docket: 61637698
Published
required to continually assert an objection. See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2020) (“If the court has made a definitive
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 2023 | Docket: 68083884
Published
meaning of section 90.104(1)(a).”); Filan v. State, 768 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); § 90.104(1)(a),
704 So. 2d 161
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 1997 | Docket: 64778259
Published
Additionally, the proffer was too vague under section 90.104(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), to preserve
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 21, 2019 | Docket: 16090309
Published
victim’s wife in accordance with our mandate. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018) (“If the court has made
908 So. 2d 595, 2005 WL 1959162
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 2005 | Docket: 1724895
Published
...he incident which was the subject of the witness's testimony. The State argues that this issue was not preserved because defense counsel failed to make a proffer, but we conclude from the record that the substance of the evidence was made known. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla....
230 So. 3d 56
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 15, 2017 | Docket: 6144135
Published
705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)). Although section 90,104(1), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that
252 So. 3d 767
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2018 | Docket: 7567950
Published
the “specific ground” of the objection at trial. § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2017); Vergara v. State, 486 So
