Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...r accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. However, relevancy is not the only test for the admission of such evidence. Relevance must be weighed against the prejudice it would cause. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), states in pertinent part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presenta...

...ct in issue."); see also Heuring, 513 So.2d at 123 (when faced with claim that prior crimes are too remote to be relevant, the trial court "must consider not the passage of time alone, but the effect of the passage of time on the evidence"). [6] See § 90.403, Fla....

...guilty for murdering Sparrow III. The defendant's state of mind at the time he made the statement was relevant to prove a material fact. See Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995). Stephens also argues the statement was unduly prejudicial. Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), relevant testimony may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the likelihood of unfair prejudice....

...performed by the trial judge who is present and best able to compare the two); Lewis v. State, 570 So.2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding the trial judge should be given wide discretion in determining whether evidence should be admitted over a section 90.403 objection)....

...We held that "[a] third person's attempt to influence a witness is inadmissible on the issue of the defendant's guilt unless the defendant has authorized the third party's action," and we barred the evidence because its probative value was "far outweighed by its prejudicial impact." Id. at 536-37; see § 90.403, Fla....

...Yet we can find in this record no valid reason for showing the gruesome photographs to Estes once the body had been identified, especially when the only issue contested at trial was Smith's reason for killing Cascio. The evidence also was cumulative and unfairly prejudicial. § 90.403, Fla....

...That evidence would have been admissible to support Smith's credibility provided that the proper foundation was established. However, the trial court remains free to exercise discretion to limit such evidence consistent with the policies of the Florida Evidence Code. See §§ 90.403-.405, Fla....

...n properly admitted as relevant evidence because it was an instrument which could have caused the victim's wounds, based on the medical examiner's testimony and the other evidence linking this knife to Ramirez." We review a trial court's ruling on a section 90.403 objection on an abuse of discretion standard....

...Martin testified that Robles had a blood alcohol level of .14. [9] Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971). [10] Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1999), provides: "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1999), provides in pertinent part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presen...

...`[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.'" Sliney v. State, 944 So.2d 270, 286 (Fla.2006) (quoting §§ 90.401, 90.403, Fla. Stat.). "[P]roper application of section 90.403 requires a balancing test by the trial judge....

...ions: whether the defendant committed the collateral crime; whether the collateral crime meets the similarity requirements necessary to be relevant; whether the collateral crime is too remote, so as to diminish its relevance; and whether pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...fact" evidence or "dissimilar fact" evidence, its admissibility is determined by its relevancy. The trial court must utilize a balancing test to determine if the probative value of this relevant evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (1991). "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...fact" evidence or "dissimilar fact" evidence, its admissibility is determined by its relevancy. The trial court must utilize a balancing test to determine if the probative value of this relevant evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...He also claims that the only purpose for the slides' re-introduction during the penalty phase was to arouse overwhelming sympathy for the victim. Accordingly, he contends that their probative value was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial impact. § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); Williams v. State, 117 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1960). This is merely an application of the general rule that where improper prejudice outweighs probative value, even relevant evidence should be excluded. § 90.403, Fla....

...90.703 Opinion on ultimate issue. — Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. These two sections are subject, however, to the limitations of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1985), which provides in relevant part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...An opinion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused is not admissible. See Lambrix v. State, 494 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 1986); Spradley v. State, 442 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Although section 90.703 would appear to permit such an opinion, such testimony is precluded on the basis of section 90.403....

...We agree with the trial court that the substance of what was said on the videotape concerned the crime for which appellant was charged and tended to prove a material fact; thus it was relevant evidence as defined by section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1995). [12] In respect to the objection based upon section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), [13] Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1200, 117 S.Ct. 1561, 137 L.Ed.2d 708 (1997), is applicable. In Williamson, we recognized that proper application of section 90.403 requires a balancing test by the trial judge....

...We concluded in Cave that the reenactment video was irrelevant, cumulative, and unduly prejudicial. In contrast, the video in this case was not a reenactment and was relevant to the issue of appellant's guilt, and the trial court properly performed the balancing test pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statute (1995)....

...ath sentence is disproportionate. [11] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [12] Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1995), provides: "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." [13] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." [14] § 394.467, Fla....

...Although the picture of appellant with a sawed-off shotgun committing a bank robbery was relevant to possession of the murder weapon prior to the crimes here, we believe that any evidence of the bank robbery or the picture's probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...(found in the trailer at the horse farm) which was stained with blood stipulated to belong to neither Chavez nor Jimmy Ryce. Chavez asserts that, even if the mattress had any probative value, it was clearly outweighed by the prejudicial impact. See § 90.403, Fla....

...sal where it is "completely impossible ... to say that the State has demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt" that the error complained of "did not contribute to" the defendant's conviction. Id. (quoting Chapman, 386 U.S. at 26, 87 S.Ct. 824). Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or potential to mislead the jury....

...See §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2000). Relevant evidence "is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...In every case, the trial court must also balance whether the probative value of the relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

...les would control the admissibility of the credit application. See §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (1999). However, relevancy is not the only test for admissibility. Sexton, 697 So.2d at 837. Despite the fact that all relevant evidence is admissible, section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of relevant evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion *22 of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1999). Although section 90.403 mandates the exclusion of unfairly prejudicial evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect....

...inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact," would appear to allow opinion testimony of the defendant's guilt. However, such testimony is precluded on the authority of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), which excludes relevant evidence on the grounds that its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant....

...rove a material fact, is admissible unless otherwise provided by law. See §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2005). Relevant evidence is inadmissible, however, where the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...(Emphasis added.) As will be explained in this opinion, these statements reflect the trial judge's misunderstanding of the procedures involved in a hearing on the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. [2] Professor Ehrhardt also notes that some Florida district courts of appeal had taken the position that section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code superseded the Frye test....

...The court further concluded that the statement fell within the exception to the hearsay rule for excited utterances, which is contained in section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (2006). [2] The court also acknowledged that the statement was "extremely damaging," but applying the test of admissibility in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2006), concluded that its potential for unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value on the issue of premeditation....

...g the victim, it was relevant in the guilt phase to establish the element of premeditation for first-degree murder. Evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact is admissible except as provided by law. §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2006). Section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of evidence if its probative value is "substantially outweighed" by any *951 of several considerations, including the danger of unfair prejudice. As with evidentiary determinations in general, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard to a trial court's application of the unfair prejudice test of section 90.403....

...4th DCA 1995) ("[A] jury can find a defendant who has killed in the heat of passion guilty of either second degree murder or manslaughter. . . .") (citing Forehand v. State, 126 Fla. 464, 171 So. 241 (1936)). Having concluded that the evidence was relevant, we next review the trial court's determination under section 90.403 that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice....

...Accordingly, the potential for unfair prejudice in Hagin's statement that she wanted her children did not "substantially outweigh" the statement's probative value. We conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion under the rules of evidence, specifically sections 90.403 and 90.803(2), in allowing the State to introduce the statement over defense objection....

...the ordinary understanding of the jury. Johnson v. State, 393 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 1980). This view is consistent with the first requirement of section 90.702, that the opinion evidence be helpful to the trier of fact, as well as the provisions of section 90.403, that the danger of prejudice may outweigh the value of the evidence....

...e expert testimony first establish that the subject can support an expert opinion with a reasonable degree of reliability. Expert testimony in areas that are not sufficiently developed to support an expert opinion can present the kind of danger that section 90.403 was designed to prevent....

...85, 88 (1935) (petition for 28 At any rate, Florida evidence law governing the relevance of and prejudice created by evidence is essentially the same as the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 887 (Fla.1998) (observing that § 90.403 of Florida's Evidence Code, which governs the admissibility of evidence when it presents the risk of prejudicing a party, "is in essence a restatement of Federal Rule [of Evidence] 403"). re-hearing)....

...led to bring this fact to the jury's attention to show bias, motive, or self-interest." Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901, 109 S.Ct. 250, 102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988). However, evidence of bias is subject to a section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), [4] balancing and may be inadmissible if its unfair prejudice to a witness or a party substantially outweighs its probative value....

...Where the State wishes to introduce Williams rule evidence in a criminal action, it must provide the defendant notice, at least ten days prior to trial, of the offenses or acts it intends to offer. § 90.404(2)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (1993). No such notice was given in the instant case. [4] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cu...

...victim. We dealt with a similar issue in Alston v. State, 723 So.2d 148, 156 (Fla.1998), and, as here, found that the admission of a videotape was relevant and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not barring the tape on the basis of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...The district court suggests that the similarity of conduct should be less when a defendant seeks to introduce Williams rule evidence because there is a lessened chance of prejudice. Section 90.402, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that all relevant evidence is admissible except as provided by law. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), however, provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible when outweighed by prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or presenting of cumulative evidence....

...As we said in Baird, the inherently prejudicial effect of admitting into evidence an out-of-court statement relating accusatory information to establish the logical sequence of events outweighs the probative value of such evidence. Such practice must be avoided. Baird, 572 So.2d at 908; see § 90.403, Fla....

...rge that was later dropped), and that Hayes released the victim and allowed her to leave the room. We also find that any marginal relevance the prior attack may have had to the instant case was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Admissibility of Abortion Evidence Walker argues that the evidence concerning his desire that Ms. Jones abort their child was not relevant to showing premeditation or his motive to commit these murders and, even if relevant, it was inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), because its weak probative value was outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect....

...A few weeks subsequent to the support order becoming final, Walker murdered his son and ex-girlfriend after arguing with her about the support award. As to Walker's alternative claim that, although relevant, the admission of this evidence was unfairly prejudicial to him, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), reads: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible. We explained the balancing test which a trial court must perform under section 90.403 in State v....

...Indeed, the same item of evidence may be admissible in one case and not in another, depending upon the relation of that item to the other evidence. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, § 185 (3d ed. 1984). Professor Ehrhardt explains the application of the statute as follows: Although Section 90.403 is mandatory in its exclusion of this evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by any of the enumerated reasons. The court must weigh the proffered evidence against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion. *310 In excluding certain relevant evidence, Section 90.403 recognizes Florida law. Certainly, most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions....

...Contrary to Walker's suggestion, the prosecutor did not use this evidence to needlessly inflame the jury or provide an improper basis for their verdict. Consequently, we reject Walker's claim and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in performing the section 90.403 balancing test and admitting Walker's statements to Detective Cunningham as relevant evidence against him....

...Williams' testimony that drowning was a cause of death and that Ms. Jones was alive when she was thrown into the water, is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she was conscious. Consequently, Dr. Williams' testimony was admissible under sections 90.401 and 90.403 as relevant and probative of the struggle and panic Ms....

...ind was not a material issue in the prosecution for which the state was entitled to adduce evidence. See State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904, 907 (Fla.1990). In any event, the danger of unfair prejudice far outweighed any probative value of the testimony. § 90.403, Fla....

...n be applied to evidence at trial. 90.703 Opinion on ultimate issue. — Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. In addition, section 90.403 provides: 90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion....

...that the opinion evidence can be applied to evidence offered at trial. These provisions embody a liberal policy on the admission of expert evidence, generally rendering such evidence admissible to the extent that it is helpful to the trier of fact. Section 90.403 adds a fourth test barring evidence that, although technically relevant, presents a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value....

...the ordinary understanding of the jury. Johnson v. State, 393 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 1980). This view is consistent with the first requirement of section 90.702, that the opinion evidence be helpful to the trier of fact, as well as the provisions of section 90.403, that the danger of prejudice may outweigh the value of the evidence....

...Holland's opinion was predicated upon and intended to explain the evidence offered at trial of the victim's change in behavior and the victim's claim of trauma at the hands of the appellant. The fourth test for admissibility contained in the provisions of section 90.403 presents a more difficult issue: Is the probative value of Dr....

...e expert testimony first establish that the subject can support an expert opinion with a reasonable degree of reliability. Expert testimony in areas that are not sufficiently developed to support an expert opinion can present the kind of danger that section 90.403 was designed to prevent....

...Based upon all the considerations discussed above, we cannot say that the probative value of the opinion evidence on the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome offered here was so substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice as to bar its admission under section 90.403....

...ert's testimony. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 702.1 (1992). In the instant case, Malone's testimony about his extensive experience in other investigations was relevant to establish his qualifications as a hair and fiber analyst. Although section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury or needless presentation...

...allowing Samantha Williams to testify about an encounter she had with Aguirre in her home prior to the murders because the testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. We disagree. We conclude that the testimony was relevant and did not violate section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...We further find that the testimony's probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See Steverson v. Florida, 695 So.2d 687, 688-89 (Fla.1997) (holding that most evidence admitted will prejudice the party it is offered against, but section 90.403 is "directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions" (quoting Charles W....

...ry, with a transcript provided for their review during the playing of the tapes. Before we begin our analysis of this issue, we review the test to be applied in such cases. Admission of probative but potentially prejudicial evidence is controlled by section 90.403, Florida Statutes. It states in pertinent part: 90.403 Exclusion on the grounds of prejudice or confusion—Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2007). In State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla.1988), we explained the balancing test a trial court must perform under section 90.403 in determining whether relevant evidence is admissible against a defendant at trial....

...The tapes, including the language used as well as the context in which the conversations took place, provided relevant information for the jury to consider when assessing the reliability of his explanations. Professor Ehrhardt explained the application of section 90.403 under these circumstances as follows: Evidence of conduct or speech of the accused which demonstrates a consciousness of guilt is relevant since it supplies the basis for an inference that the accused is guilty of the offense....

...g under the influence of a drug such as cocaine. Therefore, it would appear that evidence that McClain had even a trace of cocaine in his blood would have some relevance. However, the question here is whether the evidence was properly excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which states: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...Indeed, the same item of evidence may be admissible in one case and not in another, depending upon the relation of that item to the other evidence. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, § 185 (3d ed. 1984). Professor Ehrhardt explains the application of the statute as follows: Although Section 90.403 is mandatory in its exclusion of this evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by any of the enumerated reasons. The court must weigh the proffered evidence against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion. In excluding certain relevant evidence, Section 90.403 recognizes Florida law. Certainly, most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions....

...We begin our analysis with the basic proposition that in order to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (1995). Relevant evidence is defined as evidence "tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Id. § 90.401. However, the admission of relevant evidence is restricted by the mandate of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), which provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Section 90.403 compels the trial court to engage in this balancing test....

...Gore's credibility; and (2) because the inquiry was within the scope of Gore's testimony on direct. Even if the cross-examination constituted potential impeachment or was within the scope of direct, the evidence must still pass the balancing test of section 90.403 to be admissible....

...Appellant further asserts that even if the testimony about appellant's statement to Bonilla and the prior crimes and arrest warrants is relevant, this evidence is so inflammatory that its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect in violation of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1260 (Fla.1988). In reviewing testimony about a collateral crime that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...hearing *695 because the trial judge denied funding for the transportation of fifty-two out-of-town witnesses and because the judge allowed only eight witnesses to testify. We find no merit in Robinson's claim under the circumstances presented here. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the ......

...In circumstances such as this, we strongly suggest that prosecutors err on the side of caution by omitting these statements and that trial courts consider the danger that the prejudicial effect of such evidence will substantially outweigh any probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...cutor's expert witness in explaining how the shooting occurred. Appellant contends in this appeal that even if the blood-stained clothing was relevant evidence, its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...isfy subsection 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989), and the child is able to testify fully at trial, must the hearsay statements be excluded solely because they are prior consistent statement by the child, or is the test for exclusion that found in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989)? 582 So.2d at 1228....

...t trial. However, we also agree with the court below that this is not the end of the inquiry. As that court stated: Although the child's statements cannot be excluded as hearsay, the statements, like any other evidence, are subject to analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). Thus, the defendant can move for exclusion of the evidence under section 90.403 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." 582 So.2d at 1228 (emphasis added). Thus, although the admission of a child victim's hearsay statement is not excludable as hearsay or as a prior consistent statement *668 under the statute, the admission of the statement is subject to the balancing test found in section 90.403....

...n language of the statute, while the Pardo court took account of the mechanism which already existed in the Florida evidence code for excluding the needless or prejudicial presentation of cumulative evidence. Of course, the same concerns embodied in section 90.403 are those which underlie the common law rule against prior consistent statements....

...orker Terry Vazquez, and Doctor Raquel Bild-Libbin. [4] Merci Restani, Dawn Bralow, and Dr. Bild-Libbin. [5] See generally Taylor Mattis, Stare Decisis Among and Within Florida's District Courts of Appeal, 18 Fla.St.U.L.Rev. 143, 155-160 (1990). [6] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in relevant part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presenta...

...The trial court sustained the State's objection, finding that the letters would be cumulative of other evidence, but did not prevent Rivers from characterizing portions of the letters from Parker. Parker contends that this ruling was in error. We disagree. *282 Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2003), provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." (Emphasis supplied.) In Mendoza v....

...at 251 (citations omitted). On the other hand, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative *1213 evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...is termed "similar fact" evidence or "dissimilar fact" evidence, its admissibility is determined by its relevancy. The trial court must utilize a balancing test to determine if the probative value of this relevant evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Contending that this evidence was similar fact evidence, Butler argues this evidence should have been excluded because it was used only to show Butler's propensity to commit the crime charged or his bad character and because the probative value of this evidence was outweighed by the prejudice. See §§ 90.403-90.404, Fla....

...State, 705 So.2d at 1366 (reversing death sentence on proportionality grounds in case with one aggravating factor and "copious unrebutted mitigation"). Therefore, I would reverse the death sentence and remand for imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment. NOTES [1] Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla.1993). [2] § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...The test of admissibility is relevancy, Ruffin v. State, 397 So.2d 277 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 368, 70 L.Ed.2d 194 (1981); Williams, but relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...and unverified abuse of children other than the victim a focal point of the trial. We conclude that the prejudicial effect of this evidence, in total, outweighs any relevance the State alleges a particular individual's testimony might have had. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Sunrise Point Condominium, 540 So.2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Appellants argue, however, that even if the evidence was relevant, it should have been excluded because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...hose perceived by, or made known to, him at or before the trial. If the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. In addition, section 90.403 provides: 90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion....

...Thus, it cannot be said that the court erred in designating him an expert in the field of grief and bereavement. Finally, appellants argue that the statements made by the expert witness should be excluded as their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (2007), defines relevant evidence thusly: "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." And section 90.402 provides that "[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2007). Section 90.403 sets forth the following exclusion: 90.403....

...danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible. *195 § 90.403, Fla....

...d and that the additional evidence would obscure the discovery of the truth."), for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing or confusing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...tances, it was not relevant to any material issue on the facts of this case."), for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing or confusing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ve. Based on this record, the court did not err in this respect, for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing or distracting or confusing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...d be probative of anything." Based on this record, the court did not err in this respect, *196 for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...*197 Based on this record, the court did not err in admitting the evidence of flight, for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing or misleading the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...order to explain certain statements in the tapes, the court did not err in this respect, for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...As we said in Baird, the inherently prejudicial effect of admitting into evidence an out-of-court statement relating accusatory information to establish the logical sequence of events outweighs the probative value of such evidence. Such practice must be avoided. Baird, 572 So.2d at 908; see § 90.403, Fla....

...fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2001). "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...burning of her car given its marginal probative value and its tendency to suggest that Wallace burned the vehicle to destroy evidence incriminating Dennis. See Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000) ("We review a trial court's ruling on a section 90.403 objection on an abuse of discretion standard.")....

...Moreover, the jury properly heard substantial evidence of incidents in which Dennis's jealousy manifested itself in his relationship with Lumpkins. In his eighth claim on appeal, Dennis contends that the trial court erred in admitting several autopsy photos of the victims over his section 90.403 objection....

...[3] Although Scales testified that she could not recognize the individual, she was certain that it was not Joseph Stewart. [4] The expert testified that this was not surprising given that the shotgun was submerged in the sewer drain for some time before it was recovered. [5] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in relevant part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...dmissible if relevant, e.g., to support the State's theory of the motive in the case. Jorgenson v. State, 714 So.2d 423, 427 (Fla.1998). However, "[e]ven after *573 determining the evidence is relevant, a trial court in every case must also consider section 90.403," which prohibits the admission of relevant evidence when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially exceeds the evidence's probative value....

...reasonable doubt, harmless error. C. Admission of Photographic Evidence At trial, appellant objected to the admission of all 97 photographs found in the packet. The court found that all of the pictures were relevant, but reviewed each picture under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), weighing the probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice, and excluded seven of the photographs from jury review....

...zes the objectionable pictures into three groups: photos of Floyd's daughter, photos of Keller's child, and photos of female genitalia. This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard to a trial court's application of the unfair prejudice test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...ear abuse of discretion. The sixteen pictures of the victim were the most prejudicial photos admitted at trial, and appellant has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in determining the admissibility of the other pictures under section 90.403....

...“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2011). Relevant evidence “is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...cause the threat was not taken seriously, that argument goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Even relevant evidence, though, must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...As we stated in Williamson: Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1988). In reviewing testimony about a collateral crime that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, [Florida Statutes (1999),] a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...allow a police officer to testify as an expert as to a relationship between possessing $1,290 in cash and dealing in narcotics. [1] Any probative value the expert *936 testimony might have had was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. § 90.403, Fla....

...This evidence may yet be inadmissible if it is not legally relevant. See McCormick, supra § 185 at 440-441; 23 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence, supra, at § 124; Cotton v. United States, 361 F.2d 673, 676 (8th Cir.1966); Hoag v. Wright, 34 App.Div. 260, 54 N.Y.S. 658, 662 (1898). Section 90.403 encompasses the test for legal relevance by requiring that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence......

...State, 402 So.2d 365 (Fla. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1035, 102 S.Ct. 1739, 72 L.Ed.2d 153 (1982) (sodium butathol test). [20] Other techniques, however, have been held to have sufficient reliability so as to vest discretion in the trial court to consider Section 90.403's balancing test for legal relevancy....

...e used in a given case. Hence, the probative value of hypnosis rests on both the reliability of the principle and the technique or procedure employed, both of which are inseparably intertwined. The court must first evaluate such evidence pursuant to Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, by weighing its probative value in an effort to decide if its admissibility would be substantially outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misguidance of the jury, or needless presentation of the issues....

...Dependent upon the degree to which the eight foregoing safeguards can be satisfied, the trial judge can weigh the probative value of the testimony to see if it is substantially outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice, or by the fact that it may mislead the jury. § 90.403, Fla....

...or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion." (Citations omitted.) We agree that the foregoing statement is the correct standard to review a ruling on the admissibility of evidence under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Huggins also contests the admission of his nine prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes, arguing that the State, rather than defense counsel, elicited the hearsay statement attributed to Huggins and that evidence of Huggins' nine felony convictions should have been excluded under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...Thus, pursuant to section 90.806, as properly construed in Llanos, Werley , and Kelly, Huggins opened the door to his own impeachment. Regarding Huggins' argument that evidence of his nine prior felony convictions should have been excluded under the balancing test of section 90.403, this Court must determine if the trial court abused its discretion. See Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000). Section 90.403 provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." The gene...

...Here, however, the prior-record impeachment on a collateral matter took the jury far from the question of the defendant's guilt of the charged murder. Even when the impeachment does not go to a collateral matter, the impeachment evidence may be excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2004), which provides *775 that evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...er than through contradictory evidence or inconsistent statements by the witness on a specific matter. Cf. Riechmann v. State, 581 So.2d 133, 140 (Fla.1991) (observing that "the nature and remoteness of prior convictions" may justify exclusion under section 90.403)....

...The State did not attempt to introduce the prior record under section 90.404, Florida Statutes (2004), which governs the admission of evidence of other crimes, demonstrating its irrelevance for any purpose but impeachment. Accordingly, the prior record should have been excluded under section 90.403. Even assuming that the testimony concerning Huggins' reason for shaving his pubic region opened the door for impeachment and that the prior record was not inadmissible under section 90.403, I nonetheless question whether the admission of Huggins' prior record is authorized by section 90.806....

...ot be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994). However, relevancy is not the only test for admissibility. Even after determining that evidence is relevant, a trial court in every case must also consider section 90.403. Section 90.403 states in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Section 90.403 does not bar the introduction of all evidence that is prejudicial or damaging to the party against whom it is being offered; indeed, as a practical matter, almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1988). In reviewing testimony about a collateral bad act that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...d therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Williams rule, does not give proper consideration to the fact that the admission encompassed many other crimes irrelevant to this case. Thus, it must be analyzed under case law interpreting both sections 90.403 and 90.404, Florida Statutes (2001). The majority chooses not to analyze the remark under section 90.404, see majority op. at 13-15, and also fails to perform a section 90.403 balancing test, which would lead to a conclusion that this statement had negligible probative value that was far outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...By comparison, in Griffin, but for the testimony as to the theft of the keys, the jury would naturally have asked how (and whether) the defendant actually stole the car. WHETHER PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE The assessment of the statement's probative value is only the first step in determining admissibility. Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), evidence is inadmissible if its probative value "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Collateral crime evidence is presumptively prejudicial....

...Trial counsel then made a motion for a mistrial. The trial court denied both of the motions. Owen's specific argument is that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that the admission of the statement was unfairly prejudicial in violation of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2001). Section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of relevant evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2001). Although section 90.403 mandates the exclusion of unfairly prejudicial evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect....

...on of another crime and thus necessarily is prejudicial to the defendant. Bryan, 533 So.2d at 747; Williams, 110 So.2d at 660. However, evidence of other crimes that is relevant and therefore not barred by section 90.404(2)(a), may be excluded under section 90.403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice....

...nstructions were given. Thus, because the challenged testimony is relevant to a material fact in issue and its probative value clearly outweighs the potential for undue prejudice, there is no bar to its admission under either section 90.404(2)(a) or section 90.403....

...The admission of this testimony thus did not violate the rule set forth in Williams. Appellant further asserts that even if the testimony about the prior crime was relevant, it was so inflammatory that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect in violation of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...d the graphic nature of the prior crime. He claims that O'Brien's testimony was especially prejudicial because it erroneously led the jury to believe that he used a baseball bat to beat the four-year-old victim. The trial judge overruled appellant's section 90.403 objections to this testimony....

...We conclude that the trial judge acted within his discretion in overruling the objections. Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1988). In reviewing testimony about a collateral crime that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...Further, he argues that even if relevant, the documents served only to confuse and mislead the jury because they implied that he took advantage of his wife and father. [13] We agree with the trial judge that the documents were relevant to the issue of identity. Moreover, we agree that their introduction did not violate section 90.403....

...ny was harmless under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). I understand that the evidence was objected to below on the grounds of failure to meet the Frye test. Upon proper objection, the evidence in question would also be excludable under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion), for the reasons stated by Judge Wolf....

...I agree with Judge Ervin, for the reasons stated in his opinion, that appellant's alternative objection based on the Frye test was likewise well taken. I likewise agree with Judge Wolf's opinion that testimony of this nature is in all events inadmissible under sections 90.401, 90.403 and 90.404 of the Florida Evidence Code for the reasons he discusses, although it should be noted that this specific ground apparently was not presented to the trial court....

...[38] This type of evidence must be excluded for several reasons: (1) It unfairly misdirects the focus of the criminal proceeding and is not relevant to the issues to be decided, section 90.401, Fla. Stat. (1989); (2) the probative value of this evidence is far outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the evidence, section 90.403, F.S....

...Petrich, 101 Wash.2d 566, 683 P.2d 173, 180 (1984); State v. Claflin, [38 Wash. App. 847,] 690 P.2d 1186, 1190 (Wash. App. 1984); State v. Maule, 35 Wash. App. 287, 667 P.2d 96, 99 (1983). Haakanson v. State, 760 P.2d 1030, 1036 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). Since section 90.403, Florida Statutes, is similar to Alaska's provision related to prejudicial evidence, the analysis would be equally valid in Florida....

...Evidence relating to characteristics of other people who generally commit a type of crime indirectly brings the accused's character into issue and has even less probative value than direct evidence of defendant's character. Thus, the evidence in question was inadmissible pursuant to section 90.403(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...approximately one week later. After entertaining argument from all counsel, the court determined that Carr's expected testimony was relevant to placing the defendants with the Camry and to Carr's credibility, and, after weighing such testimony under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), the court determined that such testimony would be admissible....

...Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1997), defines relevant *33 evidence as "evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." All relevant evidence is admissible unless the party seeking to exclude the evidence can show its exclusion is required on grounds of prejudice or confusion. § 90.403, Fla....

...The scientific portion of the Drug Evaluation is unreliable. It is in reality scientific evidence which does not satisfy the Frye [26] test; but even if Frye is inapplicable, the evidence should be excluded because it will mislead the jury and because its unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ories or techniques than does Frye. Their admissibility is not dependent solely upon proof that they have not generally been accepted by the relevant field — although lack of general acceptance, when balanced against all counterweights, pursuant to section 90.403, is clearly a component to be considered in determining whether the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by countervailing factors. If the challenged evidence, such as that in the present case, is logically relevant, and if balancing does not reveal it to be substantially outweighed by the factors *556 enumerated in section 90.403, the trial judge should tip his hand in favor of admissibility....

...NTIFIC EVIDENCE, SURVIVED THE ADOPTION OF THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE? AND IF IT HAS NOT, DOES IT NEVERTHELESS REMAIN A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN BALANCING THE PROBATIVE WORTH OF THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE AGAINST COUNTERVAILING FACTORS, AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 90.403, FLORIDA STATUTES? 470 So.2d at 787-88....

...n be applied to evidence at trial. 90.703 Opinion on ultimate issue. — Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. In addition, section 90.403 provides: 90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion....

...that the opinion evidence can be applied to evidence offered at trial. These provisions embody a liberal policy on the admission of expert evidence, generally rendering such evidence admissible to the extent that it is helpful to the trier of fact. Section 90.403 adds a fourth test barring evidence that, although technically relevant, presents a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value....

...the ordinary understanding of the jury. Johnson v. State, 393 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 1980). This view is consistent with the first requirement of section 90.702, that the opinion evidence be helpful to the trier of fact, as well as the provisions of section 90.403, that the danger of prejudice may outweigh the value of the evidence....

...atement. Thus, although the proffered question may have been relevant, any probative value of the question and answer was clearly outweighed by the danger of misleading or confusing the jury by only hinting at and not establishing the inconsistency. § 90.403, Fla....

...—although he already had been tried and convicted for that offense—and the unfairly prejudicial effect of this evidence on the jury far outweighed any relevancy or probative value it may have had in proving Steverson's guilt for the Lucas killing. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), states in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. In State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla.1988), we explained the balancing test a trial court must perform under section 90.403 in determining whether relevant evidence also is admissible against a defendant at trial....

...Indeed, the same item of evidence may be admissible in one case and not in another, depending upon the relation of that item to the other evidence. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, § 185 (3d ed. 1984). Professor Ehrhardt explains the application of the statute as follows: Although Section 90.403 is mandatory in its exclusion of this evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by any of the enumerated reasons. The court must weigh the proffered evidence against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion. In excluding certain relevant evidence, Section 90.403 recognizes Florida law. Certainly, most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it is directed at evidence which inflames the *689 jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions....

...ow he was killed, and the medical examiner's photograph of the body. Even if the state had been able to show some relevance, this evidence should have been excluded because the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value. § 90.403, Fla....

...90.401, Fla. Stat. (2003). Relevant evidence, however, "is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...as limiting the admissibility of collateral crimes evidence to a fifteen minute time interval. We, however, never intended to set an arbitrary time limit. We, therefore, clarify our holding in D.M. as limiting the admissibility of relevant evidence pursuant to section 90.402, based upon a section 90.403 analysis, which requires that the probative value of such evidence not be outweighed by its prejudicial effect....

...90.401 in proving impairment of one's normal faculties in the prosecution of a DUI offense; and (2) if answered in the affirmative, then does the likelihood of any unfair prejudice require their exclusion in those prosecutions under F.S. 90.402 and 90.403? [1] We exercise our discretionary jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4)(A) because of the disparate approaches and conclusions of the county court judges concerning the admissibility of field sobriety test evidence in DUI prosecutions within this district....

...VE VALUE OF THE TESTIMONY ON FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE DANGER OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE, CONFUSION OF ISSUES, OR MISLEADING THE JURY SO AS TO REQUIRE EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY IN DUI PROSECUTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 90.402 AND 90.403, FLORIDA STATUTES? We answer these questions by distinguishing between: (1) psychomotor field sobriety tests, in which the defendants are requested to perform certain tasks; and (2) the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, which is scientific evidence of a physiological phenomenon associated with intoxication....

...If the evidence is logically probative, it is relevant and admissible unless there is a reason for not allowing the jury to consider it." Id. at 704 (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 401.1 at 95-96 (1994) (footnote omitted)); see § 901.401, Fla.Stat. As stated in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995): "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidenc...

...e. We disagree that a per se rule of inadmissibility should be adopted which would require exclusion of this evidence in all cases. As long as the testimony by the officers is restricted to lay observations, we agree with the state that, pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), the probative value of the psychomotor testing is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...gard to the individual facts of any particular case. Certainly in an individual case, depending on the totality of the facts and the nature of the testimony, a trial court might very well be within its discretion to exclude such evidence pursuant to section 90.403....

...support the "heightened premeditation" prong of CCP in this case. [16] Nor can it be said that Melissa Perry's testimony regarding Perry's statement was the type that would have inflamed jurors or improperly appealed to its emotions in violation of Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997).

outweighed its potential for undue prejudice. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1991). We acknowledge that Heuring

substantially outweighed its probative value. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2004). Trial court rulings on eviden-tiary

apply, the testimony was inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987),[3] because its probative

to exclude the contested cross-examination. Section 90.403 of the Florida Statutes permits trial courts

1933, 16 L.Ed.2d 1035 (1966). Furthermore, Section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code states that: Relevant

inadmissible evidence is inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), because its probative

substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1993). In fact, the differences in

photograph clearly outweighed its probative value. Section 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1991). The photograph did not

such evidence is subject to exclusion under Section 90.403 whenever unfair prejudice or misleading of

danger of unfair prejudice to an accused. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1985). Swafford also argues that

combined with the so-called balancing test of section 90.403 or (ii) the Frye test was to be applied to

outweighed by the "danger of unfair prejudice." See § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1995). The danger is that this type

subject to the balancing test set forth in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), which focuses on

subject to the section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008), balancing test. Pursuant to section 90.403, “Relevant

719 So.2d 882, 887 (Fla. 1998) (observing that § 90.403 of Florida’s Evidence Code, which governs the

against the admitted relevance of the evidence. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1981). Not only was the defense willing

Peterson had committed a previous murder. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2009). He further contends that evidence

if it is not legally relevant." Id. at 88. "Section 90.403 encompasses the test for legal relevance by

if they are unfairly prejudicial or confusing. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1991). Under the business record

supporting the defendant's guilt. Id. at 672.[6] SECTION 90.403 BALANCING The question presented, as in Old

escape.[9] On direct appeal, objections under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), are reviewed under

subject to the section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989), balancing test. Pursuant to section 90.403, “Relevant

is subject to the balancing test mandated by section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), which requires a

evidence is admissible except as provided by law. Section 90.403 states that relevant evidence is inadmissible

probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. The City argues that because Kordzikowski's

evidence offered at trial; and (4) pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the evidence, although technically

value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1999). The state sought to admit

ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), operates as a limitation

sexual assault case when proven relevant under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and more probative than

investigator's testimony was inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), "because the danger

is compelled by section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005). Application of section 90.403 in determining

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Id. § 90.403. However, once the trial court determines that

substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, § 90.403, Fla. Stat.; product of unlawful search and seizure

with Sheila should have been excluded under section 90.403 because the probative value of the evidence

be admitted at trial because, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 90.403, the probative value of her medical testimony

value.” Tail, 459 F.3d at 860. According to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), “[relevant evidence

[or] misleading the jury.” Id. at 455 (quoting § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1995)). Further, an expert’s testimony

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2002). The admissibility of evidence

consistent with the victim's head injury. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2000). Admission of Inflammatory

material fact.” § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2007). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), establishes a limitation

eventual scene of the illegal transaction. [4] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in pertinent

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1985), relevant evidence

capacity to testify truthfully at trial. Also, section 90.403 of the evidence code enables the trial court

801(d)(1)(A). [4] Florida's comparable rule is section 90.403, which states that "relevant evidence is inadmissible

Debra Thomas and numerous other individuals. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2009). Such testimony is the quintessential

State, 533 So.2d 270, 273-75 (Fla.1988) (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1985)). Here, Swafford’s statement

needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2008). "The weighing of relevance

the evidentiary balancing test required by section 90.403, Florida Statutes ("Relevant evidence is inadmissible

probative value against any unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1979) (not applicable to the trial

substantially outweighed its probative value. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1985). Indeed, it is likely that

does not disqualify it from admission under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995). See Sias v. State

substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1987); see Johnson v. State, 478

exclude is sharply curtailed by the provisions of section 90.403. Although evidence of the syndrome in the case

needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1993). Sliney argues that the evidence

(2003 ed.) (citing Dosdourian, 624 So.2d at 241; § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2006)). A witness's bias or improper

potentially seriously misleading for the jury. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1991); State v. Johnson, 284 So.2d

whether this evidence is unduly prejudicial. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1997). We note that there is other

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1995); Williamson v. State, 681 So

nevertheless may be inadmissible *1218 under section 90.403 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed

permitting the introduction of this evidence. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1987). See People v. Hansen, 708

circumstances which require the application of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991),[3] the record in

Although not in effect at the time of Parker's trial, § 90.403 codified the then pre-existing case law governing

irrelevant, the evidence was properly excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), because the limited

2d 1159 (Fla.1981), we also note that under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, even relevant evidence may

outweighs its probative value, contrary to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987). We disagree. Counsel

federal precedent, it should be noted that section 90.403(6) is based on Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1983). See also, e.g., Williams v

presentation of cumulative evidence" under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), is a question that

court should have excluded the evidence under section 90.403, which precludes evidence “if its probative

State, 512 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1987). The court also erred in admitting

ruling on the admissibility of evidence under section 90.403, Florida Statutes). The supreme court explained

inadmissible evidence is inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), because its probative

prejudicial impact outweighed any probative value under § 90.403, Fla. Stat (1983). He characterizes the gun testimony

before admitting either as relevant evidence. See § 90.403.

substantially outweighed by the prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat.; see also Hodges v. State, 885 So

confusion of issues, misleading the jury..." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. Accordingly, while there was nothing

relevant to the present action. Pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2001), relevant evidence

tape recording. Absent a showing pursuant to section 90.403 that the "probative value" of such evidence

potential to unfairly prejudice the jury. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1995). Additionally, since this case

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1979). [5] We think it no coincidence

rule is inapplicable. VI. UNFAIR PREJUDICE Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), does not preclude

that which would otherwise be inadmissible. F.S. 90.403 Even if Spardello's testimony was admissible

prescribed medicine should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which provides that relevant

prove a material fact or issue, subject to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1999). Wolowitz v. Thoroughbred

appropriate weighing of the evidence required by section 90.403. See McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248, 1258

two-hour videotaped interrogation pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), arguing that the

relevant, not all relevant evidence is admissible; section 90.403 mandates that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible

unfair prejudice” or “misleading the jury” under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005).3 See Shrader v. State

played during the guilt phase on the basis of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2006), which provided that

also concluded that the legislature intended section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2001), to affect the admissibility

this ruling to be an abuse of discretion. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1995); Loper v. Allstate Ins. Co

[sic]." Defense counsel objected pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and argued that the charging