Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 90.403 (2025)
Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.
✓ 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
90.403 Exclusion on 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. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 755
cases (68 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: McLean v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2006).
McLean v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2006). “" § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2005); see also Williams, 621 So.”
Twilegar v. State, 42 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2010). “*195 § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added).”
State v. Gerry, 855 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “Accepting this argument, the trial court entered an order prohibiting the introduction of the medical testimony of Sanchez on the basis that "[t]he medical evidence from Nurse Practitioner Sanchez will not be admitted at trial because, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 90.403, the…”
Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “Concerning the issues raised on appeal, we conclude that, although the trial court erred in its conclusion that the State's attempt to revoke Willie Junior's plea agreement was irrelevant, the evidence was properly excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), because…”
Victorino v. State, 23 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 2009). “" § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2004). Admissible evidence of uncharged crimes falls into two categories: "`similar fact' evidence and `dissimilar fact' evidence.”
Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992). “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.”
Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2005). “See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2002). The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed on appellate review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
Huggins v. State, 889 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2004). “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…”
Quentin Marcus Truehill v. State of Florida, 211 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 2017). “The admissibility of both categories— similar fact evidence and dissimilar fact evidence—is determined by its relevancy and, of course, subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2010). Id.”
Walker v. State, 707 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1997). “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.”
Durousseau v. State, 55 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 2010). “" § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1999). Most evidence that is admitted will have a prejudicial or damaging effect to the party against whom it is offered.”
Armstrong v. State, 73 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 2011). “" § 90.403, Fla. Stat. In Czubak v. State, 570 So.”
— 90.403(1) — 1 case
Flanagan v. State, 586 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
— 90.403(6) — 1 case
Baber v. State, 775 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.