90.105
Preliminary questions.
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
Tucker v. State (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…”
First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney (2001)
“[10] See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1999) ("[T]he court shall determine preliminary questions concerning.”
Huck v. State (2004)
“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 (2003)
“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.”
American Tobacco Co. v. State (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.”
Livingston v. State (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 (2000)
“A witness may be qualified as an expert by either knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education or any combination thereof.”
Thigpen v. United Parcel Services, Inc. (2008)
“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. (2010)
“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 (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 (1998)
“(1993) ("Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall be conducted out of the hearing of the jury."); Fla. R.Crim.”
Partin v. State (2011)
“See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); Charles W.”
— 90.105(1) — 19 cases
First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney (2001)
“[10] See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1999) ("[T]he court shall determine preliminary questions concerning.”
American Tobacco Co. v. State (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 (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 (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 (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
Tucker v. State (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…”
Brock v. GD Searle & Co. (1988)
Van Den Borre v. State (1992)
State v. Hampton (2010)
Tullis v. State (1990)
— 90.105(3) — 1 case
State v. Ellis (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.