Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.105 (2025)

Preliminary questions.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

90.105 Preliminary questions.—

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the court shall determine preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence.

(2) When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the existence of a preliminary fact, the court shall admit the proffered evidence when there is prima facie evidence sufficient to support a finding of the preliminary fact. If prima facie evidence is not introduced to support a finding of the preliminary fact, the court may admit the proffered evidence subject to the subsequent introduction of prima facie evidence of the preliminary fact.

(3) Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall be conducted out of the hearing of the jury. Hearings on other preliminary matters shall be similarly conducted when the interests of justice require or when an accused is a witness, if he or she so requests.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 471, ch. 95-147.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 43 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Tucker v. State, 884 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tucker v. State, 884 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). · cites it 5× “Because of these three factual preconditions to the admission of an excited utterance, the procedures for preliminary questions outlined in section 90.105(1), Florida Statutes (2002), apply when a party seeks to introduce an excited utterance into evidence over the objection of…”

First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). · cites it 3× “[10] See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1999) ("[T]he court shall determine preliminary questions concerning.”

Huck v. State, 881 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). · cites it 5× “Thus, the medical examiner's conclusions in the instant case were most assuredly based partly on facts outside the ordinary experience of the jury and were, therefore, admissible under section 90.105, Florida Statutes (2003). The determination of a witness's qualifications to…”

Anderson v. State, 863 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2003). · cites it 2× “702, Florida Statutes (1999), requires that before an expert may testify in the form of an opinion, two preliminary factual determinations must be made by the court under section 90.105, Florida Statutes (1999). See Charles W.”

Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). · cites it 3× “See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). However, the statute does not set forth the burden of proof which must be met by the opponent of the privilege in order to overcome it.”

Livingston v. State, 219 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). · cites it 3× “At trial, -the State did not assert the excited utterance exception as a basis for the admission of the challenged testimony.”

Westerheide v. State, 767 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). · cites it 2× “A witness may be qualified as an expert by either knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education or any combination thereof.”

Thigpen v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 990 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). · cites it 2× “See § 90.105, Fla. Stat. It is well settled that "[t]he determination of relevancy is within the discretion of the trial court.”

Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). · cites it 2× “Consistent with section 90.105, Florida Statutes (2001), it was the plaintiffs’ burden to prove outside of the jury’s presence, substantial similarity between the claims and those in the non-parties’ suit, so as to demonstrate that such notice was relevant.”

Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996). “702 requires that before an expert may testify in the form of an opinion, two preliminary factual determinations must be made by the court under section 90.105. First, the court must determine whether the subject matter is proper for expert testimony, i.”

State v. Ellis, 723 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1998). · cites it 4× “(1993) ("Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall be conducted out of the hearing of the jury."); Fla. R.Crim.”

Partin v. State, 82 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 2× “See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); Charles W.”

Show all 43 citing cases →

— 90.105(1) — 19 cases

First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “[10] See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1999) ("[T]he court shall determine preliminary questions concerning.”

Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). “See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). However, the statute does not set forth the burden of proof which must be met by the opponent of the privilege in order to overcome it.”

Tucker v. State, 884 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). “Because of these three factual preconditions to the admission of an excited utterance, the procedures for preliminary questions outlined in section 90.105(1), Florida Statutes (2002), apply when a party seeks to introduce an excited utterance into evidence over the objection of…”

Livingston v. State, 219 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). “At trial, -the State did not assert the excited utterance exception as a basis for the admission of the challenged testimony.”

Westerheide v. State, 767 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). “A witness may be qualified as an expert by either knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education or any combination thereof.”

— 90.105(2) — 6 cases

Brock v. GD Searle & Co., 530 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

Van Den Borre v. State, 596 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

State v. Hampton, 44 So. 3d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Tullis v. State, 556 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

— 90.105(3) — 1 case

State v. Ellis, 723 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1998). “(1993) ("Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall be conducted out of the hearing of the jury."); Fla. R.Crim.”

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.