Florida Statute 90.104 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCE

Chapter 90
EVIDENCE CODE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 90.104

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.

F.S. 90.104 on Google Scholar

F.S. 90.104 on CourtListener

Amendments to 90.104

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 90.104

Total Results: 166

Frank Special v. West Boca Medical Center

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

an opinion in which CANADY, J., concurs. . Section 90.104, Florida Statutes (2009), is also applicable

McWatters v. State

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

ruling on the admissibility of the evidence. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing that pretrial

Finney v. State

660 So. 2d 674, 1995 WL 424173

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 1995 | Docket: 1637701

Cited 95 times | Published

that testimony is not apparent from the record. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991); Lucas v. State, 568

Franklin v. State

965 So. 2d 79, 2007 WL 1774414

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2007 | Docket: 1438592

Cited 59 times | Published

preserved the issue through his pretrial motions. Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, covering rulings on

Rodgers v. State

948 So. 2d 655, 2006 WL 3025668

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2006 | Docket: 1773944

Cited 56 times | Published

specific witnesses, and each objection was denied. Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as amended in 2003

State v. Jano

524 So. 2d 660, 1988 WL 43388

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1988 | Docket: 1701389

Cited 51 times | Published

fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104. If a person involved in an automobile accident

Murray v. State

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

known to the court through an offer of proof. See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2003); see also Miller v. State,

Stoll v. State

762 So. 2d 870, 2000 WL 350558

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 6, 2000 | Docket: 472165

Cited 37 times | Published

fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104." Jano, 524 So.2d at 661 (quoting Charles W

Herzog v. State

439 So. 2d 1372

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1983 | Docket: 2378158

Cited 36 times | Published

argue the issue for the first time on appeal. § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981). The remaining statements

Pacifico v. State

642 So. 2d 1178, 1994 WL 525078

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1994 | Docket: 549983

Cited 33 times | Published

1987). An exception to the rule is provided by section 90.104(1)(b), which states: (1) A court may predicate

Braddy v. State

111 So. 3d 810, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 703, 2012 WL 5514368, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 2357

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2012 | Docket: 60230891

Cited 30 times | Published

preserved by virtue of his objection before trial. § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2006) ("If the court has made

Smith v. State

998 So. 2d 516, 2008 WL 4355404

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 2008 | Docket: 2058051

Cited 29 times | Published

the time the evidence was admitted at trial. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); In re Amendments to

Marcus Jamal Graham v. State of Florida

207 So. 3d 135, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 359, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 1969

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 1, 2016 | Docket: 4418543

Cited 28 times | Published

from being suggested to the jury by any means.” § 90.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). In the pretrial hearing

Hayes v. State

581 So. 2d 121, 1991 WL 83561

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 23, 1991 | Docket: 1683858

Cited 27 times | Published

grounds are not apparent from the context. See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (1987). [9] We also conclude that

Advanced Chiropractic & Rehabilitation Center, Corp. v. United Automobile Insurance Co.

103 So. 3d 866, 2012 WL 3965118, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15326

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2012 | Docket: 60227239

Cited 24 times | Published

timely, specific, contemporaneous objection. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2010); State v. Calvert, 15 So

Angrand v. Key

657 So. 2d 1146, 1995 WL 373745

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 1995 | Docket: 463971

Cited 22 times | Published

of the Foxes' *1148 testimony as required by section 90.104, Florida Statutes (1991).[3] Although the district

Wheeler v. State

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

permitted as part of victim impact evidence. [6] Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 to

State v. Raydo

713 So. 2d 996, 1998 WL 333429

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 1998 | Docket: 1732753

Cited 19 times | Published

rendered the trial court's ruling unreviewable); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). The threshold question

Richard DeLisle v. Crane Co.

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

Tillman v. State

964 So. 2d 785, 2007 WL 2609428

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2007 | Docket: 1689853

Cited 18 times | Published

914 So.2d 514, 516 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Although the trial court offered

Parker v. State

456 So. 2d 436

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 1984 | Docket: 2449636

Cited 18 times | Published

thus, was not properly preserved for appeal. § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981); United States Fire Insurance

Jackson v. State

738 So. 2d 382, 1999 WL 415181

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1999 | Docket: 1502639

Cited 16 times | Published

specific ground was not apparent from the context." § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). The purpose of this

Filan v. State

768 So. 2d 1100, 2000 WL 140444

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2000 | Docket: 526807

Cited 15 times | Published

code also requires precision in objections. Section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that

Johnson v. State

460 So. 2d 954

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 1984 | Docket: 1766649

Cited 15 times | Published

3.390(d) and section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes, but especially note section 90.104(3), Florida Statutes

Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Construction, Inc.

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

the party [appealing] is adversely affected.” § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). When a judgment is challenged

Thomas v. State

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

proposition either within or without this state. Section 90.104(1)(a) Florida Statutes, requires a timely objection

Reyes v. State

580 So. 2d 309, 1991 WL 87226

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1991 | Docket: 407315

Cited 11 times | Published

not preserve the issue for appellate review. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989).

Simmons v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc.

454 So. 2d 681

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 1984 | Docket: 444504

Cited 11 times | Published

from the context in which they were made. See § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1983); moreover, after the

A. McD. v. State

422 So. 2d 336

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1982 | Docket: 1739924

Cited 11 times | Published

(Fla. 3d DCA 1962). The Florida Evidence Code, Section 90.104, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: (1) A court

Corona v. State

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

1, 2003, effective date of the provision of section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), that a renewed

Marshall v. State

915 So. 2d 264, 2005 WL 3299368

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 2005 | Docket: 1310874

Cited 10 times | Published

survival of a traumatic event. Florida Statute § 90.104(1)(a) provides that a reviewing court may reverse

In Re Amendments to Evidence Code-Section 90.104

914 So. 2d 940, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 701, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 2051, 2005 WL 2663044

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 2005 | Docket: 1781591

Cited 10 times | Published

re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 90.104. No. SC05-685. Supreme Court of Florida. October

Crumbley v. State

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

aware of the recently adopted provision of section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2003), which provides

Midtown Enterprises, Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc.

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

adversely affected" may a court grant a new trial. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1999); Parsons v. Motor Homes

Carter v. State

951 So. 2d 939, 2007 WL 675354

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2007 | Docket: 1682581

Cited 9 times | Published

738 So.2d 382, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat.). A "lack of foundation" objection

FINR v. Marshall

943 So. 2d 976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2006 | Docket: 1526824

Cited 9 times | Published

the party [appealing] is adversely affected." § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). In order for an appealing

Castaneda v. REDLANDS CHRISTIAN MIGRANT

884 So. 2d 1087, 2004 WL 2347598

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 2004 | Docket: 1281832

Cited 9 times | Published

case was tried prior to the 2003 amendment of section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which dispensed with

Eagle v. Eagle

632 So. 2d 122, 1994 WL 33646

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 1994 | Docket: 1514005

Cited 9 times | Published

appellants made no proffer of the evidence. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. The order appealed from is therefore

Smithson v. VMS Realty, Inc.

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

Counsel's actions preserved the issue for review. § 90.104(1)(a), (2), Fla. Stat. (1985); see Simmons v.

Wright v. Schulte

441 So. 2d 660

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1983 | Docket: 1698937

Cited 9 times | Published

incompetent. Seeba v. Bowden, 86 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1956); § 90.104(1)(b). REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

Robinson v. State

575 So. 2d 699, 1991 WL 14999

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1991 | Docket: 1731123

Cited 8 times | Published

therefore a matter of pure conjecture. See, section 90.104, Florida Statutes (erroneous evidentiary ruling

Woodson v. State

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

State, 401 So.2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Section 90.104 of the Evidence Code provides: (1) A court

Tolbert v. State

922 So. 2d 1013, 2006 WL 304555

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 2006 | Docket: 1683369

Cited 7 times | Published

introduced. The State notes the provision of section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2003), which was amended

Huck v. State

881 So. 2d 1137, 2004 WL 1584336

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2004 | Docket: 1466241

Cited 7 times | Published

Merchant, 652 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). [4] A party cannot

Miller v. State

870 So. 2d 15, 2003 WL 21766500

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2003 | Docket: 1698100

Cited 7 times | Published

defense counsel never proffered the answer. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). When asked what Deputy

Fravel v. Haughey

727 So. 2d 1033, 1999 WL 76059

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1999 | Docket: 1438280

Cited 7 times | Published

appellate review of the trial court's error. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Dr. Fravel next argues

State v. Osvath

661 So. 2d 1252, 1995 WL 621753

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 1995 | Docket: 1526497

Cited 7 times | Published

exclusion not presented to the trial court. See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (1993); Lineberger v. Domino Canning

Nava v. State

450 So. 2d 606

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 1984 | Docket: 1729147

Cited 7 times | Published

in determining the effect of its exclusion. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1983); Ketrow v. State, 414

Lyons v. State

437 So. 2d 711

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 1983 | Docket: 1256927

Cited 7 times | Published

the record to allow this court to review it. Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981). Next, we have

State v. Roberts

963 So. 2d 747, 2007 WL 1753570

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2007 | Docket: 1697316

Cited 6 times | Published

546 So.2d 65, 67 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); see also § 90.104(1)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (2006);[2]cf. Perera v

Zerbe v. State

944 So. 2d 1189, 2006 WL 3733842

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2006 | Docket: 1649808

Cited 6 times | Published

objected to the admission of the evidence. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2005).

Rowley v. State

939 So. 2d 298, 2006 WL 2956514

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2006 | Docket: 2533136

Cited 6 times | Published

precludes our review of the alleged error. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); A. McD. v. State, 422

Richardson v. State

875 So. 2d 673, 2004 WL 1091140

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2004 | Docket: 1283987

Cited 6 times | Published

was neither "specific" within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001); nor "sufficiently

Mosley v. State

616 So. 2d 1129, 1993 WL 107980

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 1993 | Docket: 1367662

Cited 6 times | Published

the point is preserved for appellate review. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991); A. McD. v. State, 422

Reaves v. State

531 So. 2d 401, 1988 WL 96450

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1988 | Docket: 2508934

Cited 6 times | Published

as surrebuttal evidence in accordance with Section 90.104(1) of the Evidence Code.[1] *403 While ordinarily

Harden v. State

87 So. 3d 1243, 2012 WL 1859267, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8258

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 23, 2012 | Docket: 60307907

Cited 5 times | Published

ruling on the admissibility of the evidence.”); § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“If the court has made

Special v. Baux

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

at trial. . In addition to section 59.041, section 90.104, Florida Statutes (2009) provides that a court

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Garrido

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

judge in argument on the motion in limine. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). The point is adequately

Southstar Equity, LLC v. Lai Chau

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

of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice"); § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat (2006) (providing that erroneous

In Re Amendments to the Fl. Evidence Code

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

See In re Amendments to Fla. Evidence CodeSection 90.104, 914 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2005); Amendments to Fla

In Re Amendments to the Fl. Evidence Code

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

See In re Amendments to Fla. Evidence CodeSection 90.104, 914 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2005); Amendments to Fla

Couzo v. State

830 So. 2d 177, 2002 WL 31355518

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 2002 | Docket: 471367

Cited 5 times | Published

ground of objection' within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a) so as to preserve a ruling admitting

Moyer v. Reynolds

780 So. 2d 205, 2001 WL 85521

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2001 | Docket: 1298178

Cited 5 times | Published

therefor should have been specifically stated. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1999); Hoffman v. Jackson's Minit

Romani v. State

528 So. 2d 15, 1988 WL 50675

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 1988 | Docket: 1367920

Cited 5 times | Published

Nebraska, have provisions virtually identical to section 90.104(1), omitting the last sentence found in Federal

In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code

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

Stokes v. State

914 So. 2d 514, 2005 WL 3116094

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 23, 2005 | Docket: 1781721

Cited 4 times | Published

prosecutor asked a witness about DUF. However, section 90.104(1)(b) states "[i]f the court has made a definitive

Bulkmatic Transport Co. v. Taylor

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

trial court may grant a new trial on this basis. § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2000); see also Parsons v. Motor

Bell v. State

847 So. 2d 558, 2003 WL 21339448

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 2003 | Docket: 1290159

Cited 4 times | Published

fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104. State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660, 661 (citation

Smith v. Hugo

714 So. 2d 467, 1998 WL 117234

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 1998 | Docket: 1513764

Cited 4 times | Published

abilities was not properly preserved under section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), which *469

Walcott v. State

460 So. 2d 915

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 1984 | Docket: 1766942

Cited 4 times | Published

contemporaneous objection rule is embodied in section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which limits reversals

O'QUINN v. Seibels, Bruce & Co.

447 So. 2d 369

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1984 | Docket: 1312118

Cited 4 times | Published

a timely objection or motion to strike. See Section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The failure to object

USAA Casualty Insurance v. Allen

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

surveillance evidence was also not properly preserved. Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides: "If the court

Vanevery v. State

980 So. 2d 1105, 2008 WL 372809

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2008 | Docket: 1735734

Cited 3 times | Published

hearsay issue when basis was clear from context); § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (requiring specific ground of

Mallory v. State

866 So. 2d 127, 2004 WL 384146

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 2004 | Docket: 1274028

Cited 3 times | Published

eliminate the need to renew the objection at trial. Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, was amended by the

Edwards v. State

763 So. 2d 549, 2000 WL 1055793

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 2000 | Docket: 1681678

Cited 3 times | Published

fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104. If a person involved in an automobile accident

O'Shea v. O'Shea

585 So. 2d 405, 1991 WL 167312

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 27, 1991 | Docket: 1293815

Cited 3 times | Published

propriety of excluding the evidence. However, section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides: (1) A court

Roberts v. Holloway

581 So. 2d 619, 1991 WL 92958

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 1991 | Docket: 2556829

Cited 3 times | Published

proffer under these circumstances. See Fla. Stat. § 90.104(1)(b) (1987). This is not a case where we can

Assiag v. State

565 So. 2d 387, 1990 WL 112508

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 1990 | Docket: 1725966

Cited 3 times | Published

Consistent with the usual law on this point, section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a court

King v. Estate of King

554 So. 2d 600, 1989 WL 153644

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1989 | Docket: 1693369

Cited 3 times | Published

depositor were assets of the estate. NOTES [1] See Section 90.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). [2] A similar

DeSantis v. Acevedo

528 So. 2d 461, 1988 WL 67771

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1988 | Docket: 1367664

Cited 3 times | Published

that it affects the issue of credibility. See § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987); Simmons v. Baptist Hosp

Emilia L. Carr v. State of Florida

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

State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998). While section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that

Williams v. State

109 So. 3d 831, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3492, 2013 WL 811648

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 2013 | Docket: 60229813

Cited 2 times | Published

specific, contemporaneous objection); see also § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). Williams correctly argues

DeLuise v. State

72 So. 3d 248, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16079, 2011 WL 4808267

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2011 | Docket: 60303233

Cited 2 times | Published

find that the issue was adequately preserved. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2007) (“If the court has made

Kovaleski v. State

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

apparent from the context in which it is offered. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d

Cash v. State

875 So. 2d 829, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9680, 2004 WL 1474550

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 2004 | Docket: 64831163

Cited 2 times | Published

objection made in a motion in limine at trial. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2003).

Celentano v. Banker

728 So. 2d 244, 1998 WL 567867

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 1998 | Docket: 1673885

Cited 2 times | Published

Hayes, 707 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). See also § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). The trial court, in

Guittierez v. State

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

Additionally, the proffer was too vague under section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), to preserve

Taylor v. State, Dept. of Transp.

701 So. 2d 610, 1997 WL 716811

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 1997 | Docket: 1447208

Cited 2 times | Published

excluded evidence. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.450(b); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). A sufficient offer of

Porro v. State

656 So. 2d 587, 1995 WL 366715

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 1995 | Docket: 2551733

Cited 2 times | Published

to permit defendant to complete his record. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993); Charles W. Ehrhardt

Key v. Angrand

630 So. 2d 646, 1994 WL 6401

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 1994 | Docket: 481335

Cited 2 times | Published

which excluded evidence within the meaning of section 90.104. Accordingly, an offer of proof was required

HERMAN FARRELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA

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

KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. v. KHRISTOPHER DOUGHTY & KATARZYNA DZIEWIECIEN

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)

Collins v. State

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

Kevan Boyles v. A&G Concrete Pools Inc.

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

increased in the years since the amendment of section 90.104, Florida Statutes in 2003. This amendment modified

Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A.

118 So. 3d 867, 2013 WL 3455600, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10987

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2013 | Docket: 60233459

Cited 1 times | Published

State, 308 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Cf. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2012) (providing “if the court

Marshall v. State

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

and was not necessary to preserve the error. See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2010) (“If the court has made a definitive

Britton v. State

928 So. 2d 386, 2006 WL 888056

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 2006 | Docket: 1406059

Cited 1 times | Published

proffer the substance of the excluded evidence. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004).

Smith v. State

738 So. 2d 410, 1999 WL 420115

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 1999 | Docket: 1502783

Cited 1 times | Published

as waived Mr. Smith's other claim of error. See § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). [4] In the order granting

Ketterson v. Estate of Bruns

711 So. 2d 613, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5618, 1998 WL 250715

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 20, 1998 | Docket: 64781144

Cited 1 times | Published

Holloway, 581 So.2d 619, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial court’s decision

Brantley v. Snapper Power Equipment

665 So. 2d 241, 1995 WL 521121

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 1995 | Docket: 1351995

Cited 1 times | Published

trial court excludes documents from evidence. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993). In this case the trial

Fernandez v. State

555 So. 2d 437, 1990 WL 2098

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 1990 | Docket: 1724714

Cited 1 times | Published

would have revealed. The Florida Evidence Code, Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides: (1) A court

Simpson v. K-Mart Corp.

537 So. 2d 677, 1989 WL 4182

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 1989 | Docket: 2557932

Cited 1 times | Published

Hood, 120 So.2d 223, 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987). AFFIRMED. NOTES [1]

Connell v. Guardianship of Connell

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

447 So.2d 369, 370 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983). *1383 Finally

Herzog v. State

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

Alonso v. State of Florida

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

John A. Miller v. Janay Conney

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

Suiter v. State of Florida

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

Alberto Pescatore and Deeper Blue Sea, LLC v. Jose Luis Fernandez

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

BACILIO ANTEMATE XOLO v. STATE OF FLORIDA

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

SANDRA PEREZ CARBONELL v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

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

Universal Insurance Company of North America v. Sunset 102 Office Park Condominium Association, Inc.

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),

Granville Ritchie v. State of Florida

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

WILLIAM HERNANDEZ v. CGI WINDOWS AND DOORS, INC.

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

PATRICK SUTTON v. HAROLD J. FOWLER, JR.

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

SHANTEL KIMBERLY EMMITT v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC. d/b/a TROLLEY 606

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

Kenneth Lee Manhard v. State of Florida

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

DANIEL HUDSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA

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

Roger N. Rosier v. State of Florida

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

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code

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

Lee v. State

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

Lee v. State

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

William Lee v. State of Florida

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

Raymond v. State

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

Antonio Williams v. State of Florida

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

TRAVIS L. JACKSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA

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

JAVORIS DENARD PHILLIPS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

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

JAVORIS DENARD PHILLIPS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

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

Reginald L. Henry v. State of Florida

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

Fabregas v. Fernandez

215 So. 3d 111, 2017 WL 697686, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2352

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2017 | Docket: 60264528

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016); Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code

210 So. 3d 1231, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 179, 2017 WL 633770, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 338

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2017 | Docket: 4586140

Published

2007); In re Amends. to Fla. Evidence Code—Section 90.104, 914 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2005); Amends. to Fla

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Alaqua Property

190 So. 3d 662, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6147, 2016 WL 1600421

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 2016 | Docket: 3061473

Published

judgment ¿ñd remand for a new trial. See § 90.104(1), Fla.. Stat, (2014) (“[A] court may .., set

Brian M. Beauchamp v. The Bank of New York Trust Company

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

860 So.2d 436, 447-48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). The Bank reasons that because

Lloyd Steve Burdeshaw and Teresa Burdeshaw v. The Bank of New York Mellon etc.

148 So. 3d 819

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2014 | Docket: 1443081

Published

and was granted a standing objection. While section 90.104, Florida Statutes, requires “a specific ground

Kyne v. State

141 So. 3d 759, 2014 WL 3377076, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10607

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2014 | Docket: 60242031

Published

State’s argument ignores the plain language of section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), added in 2003

Keyne v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2014 | Docket: 378012

Published

State's argument ignores the plain language of section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), added in 2003

Marcia Priscilla Rodrigues v. State

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

proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.” § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added). Here

Montes-Valeton v. State

141 So. 3d 204, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3615, 2014 WL 950153

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2014 | Docket: 60241817

Published

code also requires precision in objections. Section 90.104(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that

Golden v. State

114 So. 3d 404, 2013 WL 2320821, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8452

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 2013 | Docket: 60231900

Published

rule, is it not? I've already *406ruled[.]” Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides, "If the court

Powell v. State

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

object when the evidence is admitted at trial. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010) (providing in relevant

Neals v. State

972 So. 2d 1047, 2008 WL 183347

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 23, 2008 | Docket: 2562407

Published

to an abuse of discretion standard); see also § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006) (holding that to preserve

Williams v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.

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

suit by a motion in limine. We do not agree. Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2006), discusses rulings

Johnson v. Moore

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

reason stated by Johnson. THE PROFFER Citing Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Moore claims that

Ocwen Financial Corp. v. Kidder

950 So. 2d 480, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2352, 2007 WL 518547

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 2007 | Docket: 64849596

Published

an objection has been sustained, because of section 90.104(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). The statute

Dunston v. State

913 So. 2d 1258, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18012, 2005 WL 3054065

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 2005 | Docket: 64840841

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 90.104(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); Pearce v. State, 880 So.2d 561 (Fla.2004);

Verite Antiques, Inc. v. Chelsea Enterprises, Inc.

912 So. 2d 380, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16288, 2005 WL 2511520

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2005 | Docket: 64840613

Published

proper objection or proffer in the trial court. See § 90.104, Fla. Stat. (2002). Affirmed.

Hammett v. State

908 So. 2d 595, 2005 WL 1959162

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 2005 | Docket: 1724895

Published

substance of the evidence was made known. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002); see also Reaves v. State

Hammett v. State

908 So. 2d 595, 2005 WL 1959162

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 2005 | Docket: 1724895

Published

substance of the evidence was made known. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002); see also Reaves v. State

Alvarez v. Crosby

907 So. 2d 1231, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10808, 2005 WL 1631087

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2005 | Docket: 64839745

Published

trial court when the evidence is excluded. See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). The Louisiana case thus

Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code

891 So. 2d 1037, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 787, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 2244, 2004 WL 2814287

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 2004 | Docket: 64835629

Published

volunteer. Chapter 2003-259, section 1, amended section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, to eliminate the need

Dones v. Moss

884 So. 2d 230, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11660, 2004 WL 1750112

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 2004 | Docket: 64833459

Published

785 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (quoting § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1999)), the court stated, “A trial

Padilla v. BIV Investments & Management, Inc.

783 So. 2d 349, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5802, 2001 WL 454689

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 2001 | Docket: 64804989

Published

whatsoever relating to the order in limine. See § 90.104(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). Furthermore, the instances

Grant v. State

764 So. 2d 804, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9360, 2000 WL 1021359

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2000 | Docket: 64799460

Published

the admissiop of evidence. In jury trials, section 90.104(2) of the Florida Evidence Code mandates: “A

Moser v. State

763 So. 2d 1165, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 318, 2000 WL 36257

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 2000 | Docket: 64799201

Published

State, 694 So.2d 157, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). However, for the reasons

Lee v. State

729 So. 2d 975, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3316, 1999 WL 147234

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1999 | Docket: 64787414

Published

so doing, the preservation requirements of section 90.104(l)(b),(3), Florida Statutes (1997) are met

Guitterez v. State

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

Nixon v. State

694 So. 2d 157, 1997 WL 292661

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 1997 | Docket: 2531176

Published

because of the failure to proffer the testimony. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995); Woodson v. State, 483

Sanon v. State

669 So. 2d 1131, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2829, 1996 WL 121013

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 1996 | Docket: 64763224

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1995); see Grant v. State, 390 So.2d 341, 344 (Fla

Valenti v. Elser, Greene, Hodor & Fabar

660 So. 2d 814, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10180, 1995 WL 567378

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 27, 1995 | Docket: 64758906

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 90.104(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993); Nichols v. Kroelinger, 46 So.2d 722 (Fla.1950);

Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Merchant

652 So. 2d 1206, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3237, 1995 WL 132255

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 1995 | Docket: 64755313

Published

redacted before being played to the jury. See § 90.104(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). Because Winn Dixie failed

Cruz v. State

593 So. 2d 312, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 760, 1992 WL 16582

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 1992 | Docket: 64665137

Published

1973), cert. denied, 293 So.2d 715 (Fla.1974); see § 90.104(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). Second, the state concedes

Fernandez-Carballo v. State

590 So. 2d 1004, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12259, 1991 WL 259230

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 1991 | Docket: 64663938

Published

State, 422 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989); cf. Silveira-Hernandez

Strapp v. State

588 So. 2d 27, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10528, 1991 WL 211251

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 1991 | Docket: 64662544

Published

McD. v. State, 422 So.2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); § 90.104(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989). Counsel should have informed

G.A. v. State

549 So. 2d 1203, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2450, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5825, 1989 WL 120863

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 1989 | Docket: 64645423

Published

party must make a proffer of excluded testimony. § 90.104(1), Fla.Stat. (1987); Reaves v. State, 531 So

Utianski v. Ewing

545 So. 2d 496, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3632, 1989 WL 68985

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 1989 | Docket: 64643320

Published

1964), cert. discharged, 174 So.2d 540 (Fla.1965); § 90.104(l)(a), (b), Fla.Stat. (1987).

Kilpatrick v. Sanders

541 So. 2d 177, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 949, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1958, 1989 WL 34826

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 1989 | Docket: 64641498

Published

questions and from the argument to the court. See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987); Musachia v. Terry, 140

E.C. v. State

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