90.104
Rulings on evidence.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.104 Rulings on evidence.—
(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 admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears on the record, stating the specific ground of objection if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or
(b) When the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer of proof or was apparent from the context within which the questions were asked.
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.
(2) In cases tried by a jury, a court shall conduct proceedings, to the maximum extent practicable, in such a manner as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means.
(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.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 1, ch. 2003-259.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 169
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Frank Special v. West Boca Medical Center
Frank Special v. West Boca Medical Center (2014)
“Section 90.104, Florida Statutes (2009), is also applicable to the instant case.”
Rodgers v. State (2006)
“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.”
McWatters v. State (2010)
“See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing that pretrial ruling on admissibility of evidence preserves objection for appellate review).”
Franklin v. State (2007)
“(codified at § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005)). Thus, Franklin was not required to renew his objection to the penalty phase evidence in order to preserve his confrontation claim for appellate review.”
Special v. Baux (2011)
“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.”
Murray v. State (2009)
“See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2003); see also Miller v.”
Richard DeLisle v. Crane Co. (2018)
“Since then, we have traditionally continued to adopt the code, to the extent it is procedural, to avoid the issue of whether the Evidence Code is substantive in nature and therefore within the province of the Legislature or procedural in nature and therefore within the province…”
Smith v. State (2008)
“(2003); In re Amendments to The Florida Evidence CodeSection 90.104, 914 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla.2005).”
Kevan Boyles v. A&G Concrete Pools Inc. (2014)
“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.”
A. McD. v. State (1982)
“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 Re Amendments to Evidence Code-Section 90.104 (2005)
“Next, the Committee explains that it was the position of a number of its members who practice criminal law that the amendment to section 90.104 would reduce the number of motions for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.”
Corona v. State (2011)
“[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…”
— 90.104(1) — 41 cases
McWatters v. State (2010)
“See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing that pretrial ruling on admissibility of evidence preserves objection for appellate review).”
Braddy v. State (2012)
Wheeler v. State (2009)
— 90.104(1)(a) — 26 cases
Filan v. State (2000)
Marshall v. State (2005)
Huck v. State (2004)
Parker v. State (1984)
— 90.104(1)(b) — 51 cases
Franklin v. State (2007)
“(codified at § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005)). Thus, Franklin was not required to renew his objection to the penalty phase evidence in order to preserve his confrontation claim for appellate review.”
Corona v. State (2011)
“[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…”
In Re Amendments to Evidence Code-Section 90.104 (2005)
“Next, the Committee explains that it was the position of a number of its members who practice criminal law that the amendment to section 90.104 would reduce the number of motions for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.”
Rodgers v. State (2006)
“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.”
Smith v. State (2008)
“(2003); In re Amendments to The Florida Evidence CodeSection 90.104, 914 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla.2005).”
— 90.104(2) — 8 cases
Lee v. State (2018)
Suarez-Burgos v. Morhaim (1999)
Grant v. State (2000)
Cruz v. State (1992)
— 90.104(3) — 5 cases
A. McD. v. State (1982)
“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: .”
Johnson v. State (1984)
Assiag v. State (1990)
— 90.104(b) — 1 case
Dunston v. State (2005)
— 90.104(l)(a) — 4 cases
Montes-Valeton v. State (2014)
Utianski v. Ewing (1989)
— 90.104(l)(b) — 16 cases
Kevan Boyles v. A&G Concrete Pools Inc. (2014)
“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.”
Collins v. State (2017)
Persaud v. State (2000)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.