Florida Statute 90.403 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCE

Chapter 90
EVIDENCE CODE

View Entire Chapter

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.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 6, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379.

F.S. 90.403 on Google Scholar

F.S. 90.403 on CourtListener

Amendments to 90.403

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 90.403

Total Results: 709

Pagan v. State

830 So. 2d 792, 2002 WL 500315

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2002 | Docket: 329524

Cited 585 times | Published

...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...

Robertson v. State

829 So. 2d 901, 2002 WL 31267817

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 10, 2002 | Docket: 350394

Cited 231 times | Published

...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....

Pardo v. State

596 So. 2d 665, 1992 WL 56521

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1992 | Docket: 2037855

Cited 191 times | Published

...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...

Rodriguez v. State

753 So. 2d 29, 2000 WL 124379

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 3, 2000 | Docket: 2514803

Cited 157 times | Published

...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....

Stephens v. State

787 So. 2d 747, 2001 WL 252160

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 2001 | Docket: 1745075

Cited 148 times | Published

...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)....

State v. Smith

573 So. 2d 306, 1990 WL 252114

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1990 | Docket: 132818

Cited 126 times | Published

...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....

Brooks v. State

762 So. 2d 879, 2000 WL 674581

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 25, 2000 | Docket: 57131

Cited 124 times | Published

...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....

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

...- 15 - We agree with the district court that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony. The rules of evidence provided the trial court with no discretion to exclude the contested cross-examination. Section 90.403 of the Florida Statutes permits trial courts to exclude only evidence in which the “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....

Jackson v. State

575 So. 2d 181, 1991 WL 6535

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 1991 | Docket: 1731140

Cited 117 times | Published

...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....

Mansfield v. State

758 So. 2d 636, 2000 WL 329422

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2000 | Docket: 760844

Cited 108 times | Published

...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...

McDuffie v. State

970 So. 2d 312, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 763

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2007 | Docket: 1151064

Cited 100 times | Published

...`[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....

Brown v. State

719 So. 2d 882, 1998 WL 716709

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 15, 1998 | Docket: 2037539

Cited 99 times | Published

...drive, and that is the very result prohibited by the rules of evidence. Id. at 671 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the court found the error harmless due to the "overwhelming nature" of the evidence supporting the defendant's guilt. Id. at 672. [6] SECTION 90.403 BALANCING The question presented, as in Old Chief, requires us to balance the State's and a criminal defendant's legitimate interests at trial. The appropriate framework is found in section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code, which is in essence a restatement of Federal Rule 403, and provides, in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudic...

...However, the defendant also has a legitimate concern in being judged only on the crime charged, and not being convicted on an improper ground due to the admission of evidence that carries unfairly prejudicial baggage. On the specific issue before us, Professor Ehrhardt has commented that: Section 90.403 does not require that the prosecution accept every defense offer to stipulate to a fact or an issue. Counsel is entitled to present her evidence in the manner she chooses and to have the trier of fact know the details of what occurred. However, despite the rule that a party is *888 not required to stipulate to a fact, section 90.403 is applicable to the evidence offered to prove that fact or issue....

...in a civil suit. Id. at 139-42. However, in noting that Florida courts have followed our decision in Parker holding that the defendant's offer to stipulate is not binding on the State, Professor Ehrhardt points out that virtually no analysis of the section 90.403 balancing process has occurred in most of those cases. Id. at 143 n. 37 (observing that in applying Parker, "[t]here has been no analysis of the 90.403 balancing in these decisions")....

...m exceeding one year .... [to] possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm.... 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [3] Prior to adoption of the Florida Evidence Code, Florida case law had recognized a test similar to that now contained in Federal Rule 403 and section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...l "undue" prejudice resulted from the admission of a prior record reflecting the particular substantive offense the defendant had previously committed. [7] The State noted at oral argument that it was "hard to tell" if the trial court engaged in the section 90.403 balancing process mandated by our holding in Parker....

Swafford v. State

533 So. 2d 270, 1988 WL 101552

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1988 | Docket: 401031

Cited 97 times | Published

...materiality. To be admissible, evidence first must be relevant to a particular material issue to be proved. This basic framework is of special importance when the evidence to be admitted poses an unusual danger of unfair prejudice to an accused. See § 90.403, Fla....

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

...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....

Walker v. State

707 So. 2d 300, 1997 WL 539438

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 1997 | Docket: 1260222

Cited 88 times | Published

...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....

Zack v. State

753 So. 2d 9, 2000 WL 14472

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 6, 2000 | Docket: 466839

Cited 87 times | Published

...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....

Heiney v. State

447 So. 2d 210

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 1984 | Docket: 1691171

Cited 87 times | Published

...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....

Griffin v. State

639 So. 2d 966, 1994 WL 318674

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 1994 | Docket: 1310337

Cited 85 times | Published

...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....

Glendening v. State

536 So. 2d 212, 57 U.S.L.W. 2391

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 1988 | Docket: 422176

Cited 84 times | Published

...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....

Gudinas v. State

693 So. 2d 953, 1997 WL 166238

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 1997 | Docket: 1144752

Cited 84 times | Published

...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....

Gore v. State

719 So. 2d 1197, 1998 WL 670380

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 1, 1998 | Docket: 2518352

Cited 80 times | Published

...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....

McLean v. State

934 So. 2d 1248, 2006 WL 1837909

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 2006 | Docket: 1460812

Cited 80 times | Published

...ve the identity of the alleged perpetrator. In so holding, we conclude that due process is satisfied by weighing the probative value of the evidence of prior acts of child molestation against its potential for unfair prejudice, which is compelled by section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005). Application of section 90.403 in determining admissibility ensures that section 90.404(2)(b) does not open the door to introduction of any and all propensity evidence in sexual molestation cases....

...concluded that in enacting this new statute the Legislature was attempting to overrule or modify Saffor v. State, 660 So.2d 668 (Fla.1995), and Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122 (Fla.1987). The trial court also concluded that the Legislature intended section 90.403 to apply to evidence admissible under section 90.404(2)(b), requiring an evaluation of whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice. The trial court ruled that section 90.404(2)(b) governed the admissibility of Chambers' testimony and rejected McLean's argument that the statute violated his due process rights. The trial court determined, however, that pursuant to section 90.403, admission of all of Chambers' testimony would be overly prejudicial....

...econd District held that section 90.404(2)(b) does not violate due process when applied in a case in which identity is not an issue because the new statute does not simply open the courthouse to all propensity evidence. As demonstrated in this case, section 90.403 still requires the trial court judge to act as a gatekeeper, weighing the probative value and the prejudicial effect of the proffered testimony....

...As with *1256 any other relevant evidence, evidence of a prior bad act 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. (2005); see also Williams, 621 So.2d at 415 ("[E]vidence 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.")....

...However, as we later explained, "we did not specifically address the question of how similar the charged offense and the collateral sex crime must be in order for the collateral crime evidence to be admissible." Saffor, 660 So.2d at 671. Nor did we discuss the additional requirement in section 90.403 that hinges admissibility on whether the probative value of the evidence is "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, needless presentation of cumulative evidence, or misleading the jury." We hav...

...We did not discuss the relaxed standard of admissibility alluded to in Heuring. Instead we concluded that the charged and collateral offenses were "strikingly similar" and therefore met the "strict standards of the Williams rule." Id. at 1353-54. We did not engage in a detailed weighing of the similar fact evidence under section 90.403....

...Under the Florida Evidence Code, chapter 90, Florida Statutes, "[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." § 90.403. As the State conceded at oral argument, evidence that is admissible under section 90.404(2)(b) remains subject to weighing under section 90.403....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403. The similarity of the collateral act of molestation and charged offense is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403....

...Due Process and Section 90.404(2)(b) Collateral crime evidence violates a defendant's right to due process if it is so prejudicial that it denies the defendant a fair trial. See LeMay, 260 F.3d at 1027; Castillo, 140 F.3d at 883. Like the federal courts applying federal rule 403, we conclude that the application of section 90.403 should always render evidence inadmissible when it has such a prejudicial effect....

...In other words, if the potential prejudice is so great that admission of the collateral crime evidence will violate the defendant's right to a fair trial, then the probative value of the evidence must be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403. As Judge Altenbernd observed in the decision below: [T]he new statute does not simply open the courthouse to all propensity evidence. As demonstrated in this case, section 90.403 still requires the trial court judge to act as a gatekeeper, weighing the probative value and the prejudicial effect of the proffered testimony....

...onclude that this new rule of evidence violates the fundamental fairness required by due process. McLean, 854 So.2d at 802. [10] The trial court's gatekeeping function is critical. In every case, the trial court must conduct the weighing required by section 90.403....

...prior acts; and (4) the presence or lack of intervening circumstances. This list is not exclusive. The trial courts should also consider other factors unique to the case. Factors other than the potential for unfair prejudice are also pertinent in a section 90.403 analysis....

...Finally, if requested, the trial court shall give an appropriate cautionary instruction both at the time the evidence is presented and in its final charge to the jury. E. This Case McLean asserts that even if section 90.404(2)(b) is constitutional, the trial court erred in admitting the prior acts of child molestation under section 90.403. *1263 We conclude that the trial court thoroughly examined the proffered evidence and did exactly what was required under section 90.403....

...identity of the defendant is not an issue and the provision is used to admit evidence to corroborate the alleged victim's testimony. We further conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the limited portions of Chambers' testimony under section 90.403....

...sible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. Fed. R. Evid 413(a). The Eighth Circuit concluded that its analysis of rule 413 also applies to rule 414. See Mound, 149 F.3d at 800 n. 2. [9] Rule 403 is similar to section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...to address this issue here: Identity has always been the most troublesome issue confronted by the Williams rule. See generally Rawls, 649 So.2d at 1353; Morman [v. State, 811 So.2d 714, 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002),] (Altenbernd, J., concurring). Whether section 90.403 is sufficient to monitor Williams rule evidence in cases involving identity, or whether due process requires a special rule of "striking similarity" and shared unique characteristics in cases of disputed identity remains an open question in our minds....

Chavez v. State

832 So. 2d 730, 2002 WL 31642373

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2002 | Docket: 75262

Cited 79 times | Published

...(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....

Bryan v. State

533 So. 2d 744, 1988 WL 97912

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1988 | Docket: 1232965

Cited 78 times | Published

...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....

Bradley v. State

787 So. 2d 732, 2001 WL 197024

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 1, 2001 | Docket: 1495764

Cited 77 times | Published

Alston v. State

723 So. 2d 148, 1998 WL 574303

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 1998 | Docket: 2527467

Cited 76 times | Published

...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....

Andrews v. State

533 So. 2d 841, 1988 WL 107896

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 1988 | Docket: 1656583

Cited 74 times | Published

...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....

Brooks v. State

918 So. 2d 181, 2005 WL 1475401

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 2005 | Docket: 1361360

Cited 68 times | Published

...a material fact, is admissible unless otherwise provided by law. See *188 §§ 90.401, .402, Fla. Stat. (2002). Relevant evidence is inadmissible, however, where the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ause his desire to evade prosecution and the successful completion of the planned crime were attenuated in time. Though relevant, the statement by Brooks still may have been inadmissible if its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2002). Brooks argues that this is the case, and exhorts this Court to conduct the section 90.403 balancing test in accordance with the factors articulated in State v....

...he cold-blooded murder committed with such a sinister motive. Thus, any probative value in admitting a life insurance policy that was not linked to Brooks in any way was outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice, requiring its exclusion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2004)....

Morton v. State

689 So. 2d 259, 1997 WL 93765

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 1997 | Docket: 1477519

Cited 66 times | Published

...ath at a hearing, deposition, or formal proceeding could be considered for the truth of their contents. Though not identical, section 90.801(2), Florida Statutes (1993), is substantially similar to rule 801(d)(1)(A). [4] Florida's comparable rule is section 90.403, which states 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." [5]...

Taylor v. State

855 So. 2d 1, 2003 WL 21283161

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 2003 | Docket: 1752466

Cited 66 times | Published

...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....

Martinez v. State

761 So. 2d 1074, 2000 WL 766454

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 2000 | Docket: 1709329

Cited 66 times | Published

...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....

Wright v. State

19 So. 3d 277, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 497, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1416, 2009 WL 2778107

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 2009 | Docket: 1651717

Cited 64 times | Published

...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....

Ramirez v. State

651 So. 2d 1164, 1995 WL 2417

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 1995 | Docket: 476366

Cited 63 times | Published

...(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....

Coolen v. State

696 So. 2d 738, 1997 WL 268909

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 22, 1997 | Docket: 1696110

Cited 61 times | Published

...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...

Franklin v. State

965 So. 2d 79, 2007 WL 1774414

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

Cited 59 times | Published

...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....

State v. Savino

567 So. 2d 892, 1990 WL 149736

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 4, 1990 | Docket: 1381388

Cited 55 times | Published

...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....

Johnson v. State

969 So. 2d 938, 2007 WL 1933048

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2007 | Docket: 1403693

Cited 55 times | Published

...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....

Keen v. State

775 So. 2d 263, 2000 WL 1424523

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 2000 | Docket: 2543941

Cited 54 times | Published

...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....

Hayes v. State

660 So. 2d 257, 1995 WL 368405

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 1995 | Docket: 1755833

Cited 54 times | Published

...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....

Singleton v. State

783 So. 2d 970, 2001 WL 123883

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2001 | Docket: 1956055

Cited 53 times | Published

...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)....

Kruse v. State

483 So. 2d 1383, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 333

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1986 | Docket: 455779

Cited 52 times | Published

...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....

...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....

...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....

Piamba Cortes Ex Rel. Piamba Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc.

177 F.3d 1272, 1999 A.M.C. 2286, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13191

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 15, 1999 | Docket: 395372

Cited 51 times | Published

...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)....

Crump v. State

622 So. 2d 963, 1993 WL 194554

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1993 | Docket: 546677

Cited 50 times | Published

...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...

Bozeman v. State

698 So. 2d 629, 1997 WL 536005

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 1997 | Docket: 434394

Cited 49 times | Published

...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....

State v. McClain

525 So. 2d 420, 1988 WL 50191

Aguirre-Jarquin v. State

9 So. 3d 593, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 299, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 467, 2009 WL 775388

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2009 | Docket: 401036

Cited 44 times | Published

...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....

Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne

576 So. 2d 322, 1991 WL 7936

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 1991 | Docket: 1669879

620 So. 2d 180, 1993 WL 166316

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 20, 1993 | Docket: 1722865

Cited 40 times | Published

Brown v. State

426 So. 2d 76

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1983 | Docket: 510869

Cited 40 times | Published

...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....

Butler v. State

842 So. 2d 817, 2003 WL 1786712

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 2003 | Docket: 1440370

Cited 40 times | Published

...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....

White v. State

817 So. 2d 799, 2002 WL 500174

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2002 | Docket: 1728324

Cited 38 times | Published

...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....

Lowder v. State

589 So. 2d 933, 1991 WL 200150

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 8, 1991 | Docket: 1440899

Cited 37 times | Published

...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....

Dennis v. State

817 So. 2d 741, 2002 WL 122250

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2002 | Docket: 1429536

Cited 37 times | Published

...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....

Dessaure v. State

891 So. 2d 455, 2004 WL 2797213

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2004 | Docket: 1349807

Cited 37 times | Published

...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....

D'AMARIO v. Ford Motor Co.

806 So. 2d 424, 2001 WL 1472600

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2001 | Docket: 2450395

Cited 36 times | Published

...firmative defenses as was done and especially so since there was no doubt from the pleadings before the amendment as to whom the driver was. Nothing in the evidence offered before or after the amendment changes now the conclusion that under F.S. [§]90.403 the Court should have excluded the remote condition of alcohol from the case....

...the other driver who causes the initial wreck. I recognize that the driver's intoxication has the potential of distorting these cases because the emotional nature detracts from the proper focus of the case, but a trial judge has the discretion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), to control *443 the evidence and ensure that the driver's intoxication does not misdirect the jury's proper focus....

...to the effect that the "animal in the car was `alcohol,'" caused undue emphasis to be placed on alcohol as a primary cause of the injury.... Nothing in the evidence offered before or after the amendment changes now the conclusion that under F.S. [§]90.403 the Court should have excluded the remote condition of alcohol from the case....

...I would apply Brown, Manasse, and Cloud, which appear to me to compel the *444 conclusion that the district court's decision must be quashed. Moreover, I find that the trial court addressed this issue correctly in ruling on the motion for rehearing. The trial court recognized that it had discretion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), in respect to the evidence presented to the jury....

...th the fault of the driver of the vehicle who allegedly caused the initial crash. Majority op. at 426 (footnote omitted). [21] The state of intoxication of the driver of the car which collided with the car driven by Maria Nash should be handled as a section 90.403 issue, as was done by the trial court in D'Amario....

Twilegar v. State

42 So. 3d 177, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 13, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 4, 2010 WL 26512

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 2010 | Docket: 2398178

Cited 36 times | Published

...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....

Floyd v. State

913 So. 2d 564, 2005 WL 2509278

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2005 | Docket: 1698238

Cited 35 times | Published

...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....

Victorino v. State

23 So. 3d 87, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 645, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1954, 2009 WL 4061285

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 25, 2009 | Docket: 1657703

Cited 35 times | Published

...§ 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). "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....

...r fact' evidence or `dissimilar fact' evidence, its admissibility is determined by its relevancy." Zack, 753 So.2d at 16. Both types of evidence of uncharged crimes or other misconduct are, of course, subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403....

...there was also testimony that Victorino went to the park to confront the individuals who had taken his property. The record also reveals that the probative value of the evidence was not "substantially outweighed" by the "danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403....

...Therefore, in addition to analyzing whether the evidence is relevant, there must also be a careful analysis by the trial court and then this Court as to whether the prejudice from this collateral crime evidence substantially outweighs any probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

Sims v. Brown

574 So. 2d 131, 1991 WL 6533

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 1991 | Docket: 1729623

Cited 35 times | Published

...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)....

Smith v. State

866 So. 2d 51, 2004 WL 178582

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 2004 | Docket: 1680037

Cited 34 times | Published

...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....

Huggins v. State

889 So. 2d 743, 2004 WL 2755802

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2004 | Docket: 1488441

Cited 34 times | Published

...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....

Johnson v. State

842 So. 2d 228, 2003 WL 1798108

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2003 | Docket: 1730392

Cited 34 times | Published

...(emphasis added). The trial court in this case accepted appellant's stipulation that he was a sexual offender without disclosing to the jury any further details about the nature of his offense, thereby applying the evidentiary balancing test required by section 90.403, Florida Statutes ("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.")....

...State, 408 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1982) should be overruled in favor of the evidentiary analysis in Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997). The Court answered affirmatively and decided the case on evidentiary grounds, addressing the balancing of section 90.403....

...There is no contention by appellant that the jury instructions as given do not properly state the legal elements of section 943.0435(9). Although the trial court should accept the defendant's stipulation of status to avoid undue prejudice pursuant to section 90.403, the trial court is not precluded from giving a jury instruction that properly sets forth the elements of the crime....

Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc.

177 F.3d 1272

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 15, 1999 | Docket: 395371

Cited 33 times | Published

...On at least one occasion a court has admitted evidence depicting an accident 27 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"). 76 sc...

Sexton v. State

697 So. 2d 833, 1997 WL 417435

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 1997 | Docket: 1777251

Cited 33 times | Published

...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....

Williamson v. State

681 So. 2d 688, 1996 WL 528459

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 19, 1996 | Docket: 1385252

Cited 32 times | Published

...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....

Williams v. State

621 So. 2d 413, 1993 WL 241031

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 1993 | Docket: 1266168

Cited 32 times | Published

...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....

State v. Meador

674 So. 2d 826, 1996 WL 252233

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 15, 1996 | Docket: 1195272

Cited 31 times | Published

...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....

Williams v. State

710 So. 2d 24, 1998 WL 116170

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 1998 | Docket: 1731548

Cited 31 times | Published

...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....

Owen v. Crosby

854 So. 2d 182, 2003 WL 21554960

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2003 | Docket: 402787

Cited 31 times | Published

...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....

Lambrix v. State

494 So. 2d 1143, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 503

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1986 | Docket: 124348

Cited 30 times | Published

...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....

Steverson v. State

695 So. 2d 687, 1997 WL 311853

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 1997 | Docket: 425032

Cited 30 times | Published

...although he already had been tried and convicted for that offenseand 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....

586 So. 2d 1085, 1991 WL 133574

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1991 | Docket: 473454

Cited 28 times | Published

...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....

Duncan v. State

619 So. 2d 279, 1993 WL 132269

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 1993 | Docket: 1721713

Cited 27 times | Published

...ves rise to a violation of a defendant's confrontation rights, or the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value." Id. at 1205. We agree with Duncan that the prejudicial effect of this gruesome photograph clearly outweighed its probative value. Section 90.403, Fla....

Edwards v. State

548 So. 2d 656, 1989 WL 104498

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 7, 1989 | Docket: 1333084

Cited 26 times | Published

...minimum probative value necessary to establish relevancy, with or without the aid of an expert *658 witness to interpret the effect of narcotic addiction on the particular witness. However, introduction of such evidence is subject to exclusion under Section 90.403 whenever unfair prejudice or misleading of the jury is likely to result....

...the particular witness's ability to perceive, record, recollect, narrate, and understand the obligation to testify truthfully will be an important factor in assessing the probative value of such evidence in light of the trial concerns recognized in Section 90.403....

946 So. 2d 1032, 2006 WL 3093186

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2006 | Docket: 1771136

Cited 25 times | Published

...le hearsay is that the "highly impeachable statement . . . was presented for the jury's consumption without affording . . . an opportunity to cross-examine"). Second, testimony that serves as a conduit for inadmissible evidence is inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), because its probative value is "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues [or] misleading the jury." See Schwarz, 695 So.2d at 455 (holding that the expert should not have been allowed to testify that he consulted with other experts in his field because "[a]ny probative value would be `substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury . . .' § 90.403, Fla....

...al expert's opinion as to what the standard of care is includes training, experience, reading text and treatises, and talking with other physicians who provide similar care and treatment. The majority appears to fall back upon an argument based upon section 90.403, Florida Statutes, in stating "this type of testimony is inadmissible because any probative value is outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and of misleading the jury that the expert's testimony has the approval of other experts in the field." Majority op....

...A trial court applies the following test in making a determination on the admission of such evidence: 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....

Peterson v. State

94 So. 3d 514, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 370, 2012 WL 1722581, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 963

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 17, 2012 | Docket: 60310908

Cited 24 times | Published

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

Parker v. State

408 So. 2d 1037

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 1982 | Docket: 1449757

Cited 24 times | Published

...SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Conflict with Fouts v. State, 374 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Art. V § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. [2] The certified copy was similar to the form set out in rule 3.986 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. [3] §§ 90.402 and 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1979). Although not in effect at the time of Parker's trial, § 90.403 codified the then pre-existing case law governing the admissibility of evidence.

Ramirez v. State

810 So. 2d 836, 2001 WL 1628609

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2001 | Docket: 1223954

Cited 24 times | Published

...t proof of its reliability. II. RELIABILITY An expert witness is normally permitted to testify relative to generally accepted scientific theory in the witness's area of expertise. The witness's testimony is subject to the balancing test set forth in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), which focuses on "legal" reliability and applies to all evidence. When a court is faced with expert testimony based on a new or untried scientific theory, however, the balancing test in section 90.403 is inapposite because the court may be unable to gauge accurately the danger of misleading or confusing the jury due to the unproven nature of the testimony....

...t it in the form of an opinion; however, the opinion is admissible only if it can be applied to evidence at trial. § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2000). All evidence, including expert testimony, is subject to the requirements of sections 90.401, 90.402, and 90.403, which address relevancy and reliability....

...All relevant evidence is admissible, unless specifically excluded: 90.402 Admissibility of relevant evidence.-All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law. § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2000). Relevant evidence is excluded inter alia if it is unreliable under the balancing test in section 90.403: 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, *843 misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2000). In applying this balancing test, the court bars from the jury's purview evidence that is unduly prejudicial, misleading, or confusingi.e., evidence that is "legally" unreliable. A trial court's ruling on a section 90.403 issue will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion....

...st" aggravator; (7) HAC aggravator; (8) excluding certain evidence of family background; and (9) denial of a penalty phase special verdict form. [6] See, e.g., 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.")....

Gorham v. State

454 So. 2d 556

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 19, 1984 | Docket: 444343

Cited 23 times | Published

...Neither is this character evidence, which is offered to show that appellant acted in conformity with past character, as proscribed in section 90.404, Florida Statutes (1981). We must therefore weigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant against the admitted relevance of the evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

Huhn v. State

511 So. 2d 583

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 1987 | Docket: 1700760

Cited 21 times | Published

...102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959). According to section 90.401, Florida *589 Statutes (1985), relevant evidence is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact. Section 90.402 states all relevant evidence is admissible except as provided by law. Section 90.403 states 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....

Trees by & Through Trees v. K-MART

467 So. 2d 401, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 800

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 27, 1985 | Docket: 1274354

Cited 21 times | Published

...That she had undergone an earlier, identical arrest without experiencing significant emotional trauma was logically relevant to disprove her present damage claim. As noted in Brown, supra, logically relevant evidence "may yet be inadmissible if it is not legally relevant." Id. at 88. "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......

Love v. Garcia

634 So. 2d 158, 1994 WL 37919

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 1994 | Docket: 1737757

Cited 21 times | Published

...However, even if a proper predicate has been laid or the opposing party cannot prove the untrustworthiness of the evidence, the records must still withstand the test of relevancy. Accordingly, a trial judge may exclude the records if they are unfairly prejudicial or confusing. § 90.403, Fla....

Armstrong v. State

73 So. 3d 155, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 517, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 2255, 2011 WL 4389009

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 2011 | Docket: 2355336

Cited 20 times | Published

...State, 859 So.2d 465, 477 (Fla.2003) (citing Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000)). Below, we discuss the trial court's admission of each of these items into evidence and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Photographs, like all other evidence, are subject to the section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989), balancing test. Pursuant to section 90.403, "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....

Lindabury v. Lindabury

552 So. 2d 1117, 1989 WL 106777

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 19, 1989 | Docket: 1200684

Cited 20 times | Published

...only if it can 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. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), operates as a limitation and 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...

Jones v. Moore

794 So. 2d 579, 2001 WL 746764

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2001 | Docket: 1473376

...outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."). The burden is on the party attempting to exclude the evidence to make that showing. The unfair prejudice that section 90.403 attempts to eliminate relates to evidence that "`inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions.'" State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla.1988) (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 403.1 at 100-03 (2d ed.1984)); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 310 (Fla. 1997); State v. Tagner, 673 So.2d 57, 60 *160 (Fla. 4th DCA) ("Section 90.403 ......

...In accordance with the general rule that "[a]dmission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion," [1] a trial court's ruling that determines whether evidence should be eliminated under section 90.403 is generally reviewed, like the admissibility of most other types of evidence, pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard....

...se, testified as to her physical findings of trauma to one child and no findings of trauma to the other two children), approved, 687 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1996). We thus conclude that the trial court erred in finding this evidence unduly prejudicial under section 90.403....

...Johnston, 743 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (issuing writ of certiorari quashing a trial court's order prohibiting the state from introducing victim impact evidence in the penalty phase *162 of a murder trial based on the trial court's finding that, pursuant to section 90.403, the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the evidence); State v. Andres, 552 So.2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a pretrial motion to exclude a tape recording of an undercover drug deal pursuant to section 90.403 because, "[a]lthough the statements were detrimental to the defendant's case, they did not prejudice him unfairly.")....

...2d DCA 1989), the state sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order excluding evidence that included the deposition testimony of a state's witness taken to perpetuate that testimony. The trial court held that the testimony was inadmissible under section 90.403 because it was cumulative. Citing to Pettis, the district court quashed the trial court's order and held: Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987) provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by ......

...trict court granted a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court's order of exclusion. Implicit in the decisions in Wells and Nemeth is the admonition that exclusion of relevant testimony of a witness *163 must be done with extreme caution. Because section 90.403 is a restatement of Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence, [3] the decisions of the federal courts applying the federal rule are considered instructive by, and persuasive on, the Florida courts....

790 So. 2d 1094, 2001 WL 788085

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2001 | Docket: 1734529

Cited 16 times | Published

...At oral argument, counsel for Banks conceded that some of the other statements would be admissible as verbal acts. Indeed, much of the conversation between Goodman and the undercover officer would appear to be admissible to explain Banks' conduct in driving the car to the eventual scene of the illegal transaction. [4] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in pertinent part 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...

Henry v. State

574 So. 2d 73, 1991 WL 1362

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1991 | Docket: 1436736

Cited 16 times | Published

Dufour v. State

69 So. 3d 235, 2011 WL 320985

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2011 | Docket: 2356258

Cited 16 times | Published

...State, 695 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). To allow an expert to do so would cause any probative value of the testimony to be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury." Id. at 455 (quoting § 90.403, Fla....

Dickey v. State

458 So. 2d 1156

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 1984 | Docket: 1733242

Cited 15 times | Published

...testimony was irrelevant, and it was error to allow it to be impeached, see Section 90.608(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and 2) even if it was relevant, the probative value of the impeaching testimony was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, see Section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

Jackson v. State

89 So. 3d 1011, 2012 WL 1934426, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8742

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2012 | Docket: 60308482

Cited 15 times | Published

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

Turtle v. State

600 So. 2d 1214, 1992 WL 123322

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1992 | Docket: 539573

Cited 15 times | Published

...The evidence must be clearly relevant to establish a material fact in issue such as identity, motive, opportunity, plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident. Id. However, even when relevant, such evidence nevertheless may be inadmissible *1218 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." It is the obligation of the court to weigh the probative...

...would be admissible against Turtle in this case, we conclude on the record before us that the extent of the evidence and arguments concerning Turtle's offenses against C.M.F. was the result of the state's presentation and not attributable to trial tactics and efforts of the defense, was unduly prejudicial under section 90.403, and deprived Turtle of a fair trial, so that its admission amounted to an abuse of discretion by the trial court....

Hawthorne v. State

470 So. 2d 770, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1406

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 1985 | Docket: 1676407

Cited 15 times | Published

...t in issue, the proposed testimony similarly must be excluded. Once, however, the proposed evidence meets section 90.702's two requisites for admissibility, the trial judge's discretion thereafter to exclude is sharply curtailed by the provisions of section 90.403....

...Although evidence of the syndrome in the case on review may be considered relevant, because it satisfied section 90.702's *785 dual requisites for admissibility, such relevance, as McCormick notes, "does not ensure [its] admissibility." Id. at 544. One then turns next to Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, to decide, in the words of McCormick, "whether its value is worth what it costs." Id. Unlike the Dyas approach, one then balances the worth of the challenged profile evidence against all other pertinent factors, including the question of its reliability. Section 90.403 provides: "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......

...falls under an exception to the rule against character evidence. Admissibility then should turn on the extent to which the expert testimony would assist the jury viewed in the light of the usual counterweights. [Balancing under Federal Rule 403, or Section 90.403, Florida Statutes.] The qualifications of the expert, the reliability and validity of using the profile, and the need for the evidence thus affect the admissibility and of course the weight of the profile evidence....

...The discretion conferred upon the trial judge by the Evidence Code to exclude evidence is, as stated, not unlimited. He may only exercise his discretion to exclude if the probative value of relevant evidence "is substantially outweighed" by the factors listed in section 90.403 (e.s.)....

...ion on the basis of the particular facts before him. But, once he finds that the proponent of the evidence has satisfied the above two requisites for admissibility, he possesses no discretion to exclude without first complying with the provisions of section 90.403....

...In the present case, the most that can be said against the admissibility of evidence regarding the battered woman syndrome is that its value is debatable. A conflict or a debate among experts as to the validity of a particular methodology does not, under section 90.403, call for the exercise of a trial court's discretion to exclude: The phrasing of Rule 403 makes it clear that the discretion to exclude does not arise when the balance between the probative worth and the countervailing factors is debat...

...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 enumerated in section 90.403, the trial judge should tip his hand in favor of admissibility....

McGirth v. State

48 So. 3d 777, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1935, 2010 WL 4483506

Swafford v. State

125 So. 3d 760, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 793, 2013 WL 5942382, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 2421

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 2013 | Docket: 60236067

Cited 13 times | Published

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

Mendyk v. State

545 So. 2d 846, 1989 WL 65501

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 1989 | Docket: 1702815

Cited 13 times | Published

...Moreover, the potential confusion and unfair prejudice far outweighed any probative value, even if we assume this evidence had any relevance at all. Thus, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the introduction of this evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

Chapman v. State

417 So. 2d 1028

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 1982 | Docket: 364570

Cited 13 times | Published

....e., fear of violent reprisal, since reference to the collateral crime would not be admissible under Section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1979) and the probative value of mentioning the rape would be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

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

...f's deputies. Upon retrial, if the State again seeks admission of these tape-recorded interviews into evidence, we suggest that the trial court consider whether some statements by Smith or the interrogating officers or both should be redacted. See §§ 90.403, 90.801-.802; Martinez v....

Bush v. State

809 So. 2d 107, 2002 WL 341790

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 2002 | Docket: 1722365

Cited 11 times | Published

...A witness may not provide his or her opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a criminally accused. Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla.2000) (explaining that although section 90.703 permits opinion testimony on an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact, opinion of the defendant's guilt is precluded under section 90.403)....

Brown v. Sims

538 So. 2d 901, 1989 WL 6174

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 1989 | Docket: 472525

Cited 11 times | Published

...n following routine surgery. South Miami Hospital's objection to the survey on relevancy grounds was sustained. From its comments in the record, the court was of the opinion that the survey was immaterial and unfairly prejudicial: I have a 403 [sec. 90.403] problem with this, Mr....

...Indeed, the jury would not have reached the proximate cause question if it had determined that there was no duty or no breach of a duty. We hold that where all the elements of a single cause of action depend for proof on the same improperly excluded evidence the two-issue rule is inapplicable. VI. UNFAIR PREJUDICE Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), does not preclude the admission of all prejudicial evidence, only that evidence which is unfairly prejudicial....

Childers v. State

936 So. 2d 585, 2006 WL 2620262

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2006 | Docket: 109021

Cited 11 times | Published

...the soccer complex. 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 the limited probative value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...1st DCA 2003) (quoting Nardone v. State, 798 So.2d 870, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). Under the rules of evidence, Appellant could attack Junior's credibility by "showing that a witness is biased." § 90.608(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). The relevancy standards of section 90.401 and section 90.403 limit the scope of evidence available to show Junior's bias. Section 90.401 defines relevant evidence as that evidence "tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Under section 90.403, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." In this case, the trial court's rulings were based upon findings that the excluded evidence was either irrelev...

...."); Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343, 359 (Fla.2001)("[T]he trial court's ruling on an evidentiary matter will be affirmed even if the trial court ruled for the wrong reasons, as long as the evidence or an alternative theory supports the ruling."). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), provides: 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. "Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant." Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996). In reviewing whether evidence is inadmissible under 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....

...Only when the unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence should it be excluded." Id. As Professor Ehrhardt explains: Most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial or damaging to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it applies to evidence which is directed to an improper purpose, such as evidence that inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions or that an accused committed the charged crime because of evidence of the bad or evil character of the accused....

...Certainly, as the trial court stated when ruling on the inadmissibility of the notice of revocation, if the notice to revoke were admitted into evidence, the trial court's order denying the motion would be allowed into evidence as well. *594 This court has recognized that the balancing test for excluding evidence under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, requires that a court carefully evaluate the probative value of the evidence to the party favoring admission, and compare this to the unfair prejudice to the party opposing admission....

...The trial court allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine Marchina on this statement and force his admission that the previous "trouble" included a prior arrest on unrelated charges involving "little girls." On appeal, this court agreed with the Marchina defendant that this evidence should be excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...e the State's case with unreliable evidence. Because the prejudice to the State that would be created by the admission of the notice to revoke substantially outweighs the very limited probative value of this evidence, the notice was excludable under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...additional details of the same charges. The probative value of the indictment, with regard to Junior's credibility, is far too attenuated to support a conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the instrument. Moreover, under section 90.403, the trial court may, and did, properly guard against undue prejudice, in particular, any suggestion that the prosecution did something wrong or unfair by amending the charges....

...s beyond a reasonable doubt. KAHN, C.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part. I respectfully disagree with the majority's finding that the State's attempted revocation of Junior's plea agreement and Elliot's acquittal were properly excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...e with his testimony in appellant's case). The extremely fact-specific nature of this case is demonstrated most graphically by the majority per curiam opinion and by Judge Thomas' special concurring opinion. The majority applies the familiar rule of section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and simply reaches a different result than the one I believe is correct....

Delgado v. State

573 So. 2d 83, 1990 WL 212843

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1990 | Docket: 479006

Cited 11 times | Published

...Jackson, 451 So.2d at 461; Pieczynski v. State, 516 So.2d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Cole v. State, 356 So.2d 1307, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Any probative value was far outweighed by the obvious danger of unfair prejudice. See Francis v. State, 512 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); § 90.403, Fla....

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

...The issue under discussion is governed by the pertinent provisions in the Florida Evidence Code. Section 90.401 states, "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Section 90.402 states, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law." Section 90.403 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." The sponsor *162 note to this section explains that "nothing that fails to meet the tests of §§ 90.401 and 90.403 may be admitted." Accordingly, section 90.404(2)(a) recognizes the interplay of section 90.401 and 90.403 by specifying that "similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue." Since similar fact evidence of other crimes is inherently prejudicial to a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, such evidence is admissible under section 90.404(2)(a) only to prove a material fact in issue, that is, a material fact that is genuinely in dispute. In view of the obvious conflicting nature of the interplay between sections 90.403 and 90.404(2)(a), there appears to be some inconsistency in the reported decisions involving the admission of similar fact evidence of other crimes in cases of sexual battery against children....

...If there is no bona fide dispute over a material fact that the similar fact evidence is offered to prove, then the probative value of such evidence necessarily has significantly less importance than its prejudicial effect, and the evidence should be excluded under section 90.403....

...ined from the particular facts and circumstances involved in each case, i.e., has the defendant put such fact in issue. This construction and application of section 90.404(2)(a) brings it into complete harmony with the purpose of sections 90.401 and 90.403....

...2d DCA 1988). The state simply has not satisfactorily explained how and why the evidence of the Georgia episode tends to prove a material fact in issue with respect to the charged offense. The admission of the evidence of the Georgia offense violated sections 90.403 and 90.404(2)(a)....

Francis v. State

512 So. 2d 280, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2140

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 1987 | Docket: 1517304

Cited 10 times | Published

...inadmissible events. Furthermore, even 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....

...judicing the jury against the appellant so that any probative value the testimony may have had was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial, as well as cumulative, nature. The trial court's error in admitting Ms. Peeno's testimony in violation of section 90.403 was compounded when the trial *282 court permitted the state's expert child psychologist to render his opinion that, based upon Ms....

Keller v. State

586 So. 2d 1258, 1991 WL 191586

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 1991 | Docket: 1487548

Cited 10 times | Published

...ad anything to do with it. Keller denied any connection. Keller objected to Fox's testimony and sought to exclude it. He now argues that because the testimony of Peggy Fox was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial it should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987): 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....

...Fox's testimony was irrelevant to proving the charges of sexual battery and false imprisonment which were at issue in this trial. Moreover, the highly prejudicial aspect of this testimony is self evident. Clearly, Fox's testimony should have been excluded pursuant to section 90.403....

Thigpen v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

990 So. 2d 639, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13824, 2008 WL 4146663

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2008 | Docket: 1687449

Cited 10 times | Published

...clear abuse of discretion." Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1991) (quoting Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So.2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) and agreeing that this is the correct standard to review a ruling on the admissibility of evidence under section 90.403, Florida Statutes)....

...4th DCA 1969). Although relevant evidence is generally admissible, it may be excluded by the rules of evidence. Moreover, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." § 90.403, Fla....

48 So. 3d 976, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18327, 2010 WL 4870149

549 So. 2d 807, 1989 WL 118976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 5, 1989 | Docket: 1373904

Cited 9 times | Published

...the defendant probably committed the similar act with which he is charged. This well known phenomenon of jury inclination to believe the defendant did the act charged is the basis for many evidentiary rules of exclusion. The first is exemplified by section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which renders inadmissible even legally relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...s otherwise provided. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. To this rule there is a rather broad vague exception to the effect that even relevant evidence must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...makes him willing or inclined to commit a certain type of sexual *814 wrongful act. This is the very type of evidence that is intended to be excluded by the basic rule excluding relevant but unfairly prejudicial evidence as that rule is codified in section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...If the objective is to convict the accused, that view of Heuring is the better view; but if the objective is to offset human nature in order to achieve a fairer trial as to the charge being tried, which was the object of the rule excluding this type of evidence, then section 90.403, Florida Statutes, should be applied....

State v. Williams

992 So. 2d 330, 2008 WL 4412283

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 1, 2008 | Docket: 1392362

Cited 9 times | Published

...rejudice. Under the Evidence Code, "[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." § 90.403, Fla....

..."Most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial or damaging to the party against whom it is offered." Charles W. Ehrhardt, supra, at 183. The question under the statute is not prejudice but instead, unfair prejudice: whether the "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403, Fla....

...�without demonstrating that the same weapon was used in both crimes. In the present case, by contrast, the ballistics evidence is that the identical weapon was used in all three of the armed robberies. The trial court also ruled that exclusion under section 90.403 was appropriate because the collateral crimes evidence was "not the sole means available to the State to prove identity." In conducting an analysis under section 90.403, the trial court "must weigh the logical strength of the proffered evidence to prove a material fact or issue against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion." Charles W....

Bankers Trust Co. v. Basciano

960 So. 2d 773, 2007 WL 1514226

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 25, 2007 | Docket: 1404854

Cited 9 times | Published

...liability for the claim or its value." § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (1999). If the evidence is offered for another purpose, the evidence is not barred by section 90.408 and will be admissible if it is relevant to prove a material fact or issue, subject to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1999)....

Denmark v. State

927 So. 2d 1079, 2006 WL 1328832

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 17, 2006 | Docket: 1765360

Cited 9 times | Published

...Relevant evidence is any evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact. § 90.401. However, "[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." § 90.403. Thus, section 90.403 mandates a weighing process....

...Denmark's remote juvenile conduct had little, if any, probative value. See Donahue v. Albertson's Inc., 472 So.2d 482, 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (noting evidence can be remote in time or remote in sense of being too attenuated); Carrillo v. State, 727 So.2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding under section 90.403 that threats and disruptive behavior occurring over an hour after aggravated assault was too far removed in time and had little probative value as to intent or state of mind at time of offense)....

...Our record does not disclose that the trial court assessed the undue prejudice that the evidence might work upon Mr. Denmark. The facts underlying Mr. Denmark's January 2001 arrest were not subject to much dispute. His sanity at the time of the offenses was the key issue. For purposes of the probative value prong of section 90.403, the trial court acknowledged that Mr....

...s. The prosecutor repeatedly referred to Mr. Denmark's juvenile offenses, without linking Mr. Denmark's January 2001 mental condition to the events that plagued him as a juvenile. The prosecutor established no probative value for the evidence. Under section 90.403, the trial court should have weighed the absence of probative value against the undue prejudice to Mr. Denmark. See McClain, 525 So.2d at 422 (holding section 90.403 compels trial court to weigh danger of unfair prejudice against probative value of evidence); Steverson, 695 So.2d at 689 (explaining proper application of section 90.403 balancing test; even where some relevance shown, court must weigh and exclude evidence when danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value)....

...rs that overreached, presented irrelevant and immaterial facts, misled jury, and discredited insanity defense); Maldonado v. Allstate Ins. Co., 789 So.2d 464, 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding evidence of illegal alien status improperly admitted under section 90.403 where unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading of jury thoroughly outweighed probative value); Dean v. State, 690 So.2d 720, 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding under section 90.403 general drug dealer criminal behavior patterns unduly prejudicial with only purpose to place misleading inferences before jury). Conclusion We apply a harmless error test to the improper admission of evidence under section 90.403....

Newberry Square Dev. Corp. v. Southern Landmark, Inc.

578 So. 2d 750, 1991 WL 47455

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 1991 | Docket: 1525225

Cited 9 times | Published

...But his testimony for that reason alone should not, in my judgment, have been the cause for its exclusion. Moreover, in determining whether the evidence was admissible, the trial court should have considered the counterbalancing factors outlined in Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). Although a trial court enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude relevant evidence pursuant to section 90.403, Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), such discretion is not unlimited. As section 90.403 expressly provides, the discretion to exclude relevant evidence may be exercised only if the evidence's "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." (Emphasis added.) In commenting upon Federal Rule of Evidence 403, after which section 90.403 is patterned, Wright and Graham point out that "the discretion under Rule 403 is far from a license for free-wheeling exclusion; it carefully delineates a balancing test that must be applied before the evidence can be excluded." 22 C.A. Wright & K.W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5166, at 74 (1978). The balancing process required by section 90.403 was analyzed in the following terms by a wellknown commentator: In weighing the probative value against the unfair prejudice, it is proper for the court to consider the need for the evidence; the tendency of the evidence to suggest an...

...Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 403.1, at 103 (2d ed. 1984). In my judgment appellant's need for the opinion evidence outweighed any adverse consideration. At the very minimum it clearly was not substantially outweighed by any of the countervailing factors listed in section 90.403....

Scott v. State

559 So. 2d 269, 1990 WL 33501

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 1990 | Docket: 1522256

Cited 9 times | Published

...The comments made by the deputies did not prove or disprove any material fact and the trial court should have excluded them because of their lack of relevancy and the substantial danger of unfair prejudice to appellant. See Pulliam v. State, 446 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); § 90.403, Fla....

Eliakim v. State

884 So. 2d 57, 2004 WL 432488

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2004 | Docket: 1282197

Cited 9 times | Published

...Appellant complains that the court unfairly restricted his cross-examination of Martelo merely to avoid prejudice to co-defendant Jorquera. On the contrary, the trial court never needed to reach the issue of prejudice to Jorquera because it determined from the outset that the evidence was irrelevant. Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the court is required to conduct a balancing test to determine if relevant evidence is inadmissible because outweighed by prejudice....

...For this exception to the hearsay rule, the court's decision might be subject to review under a mixed standard of de novo and abuse of discretion. [4] Another example of limited and specific discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence is found in section 90.403, which provides: "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." At least initially, the trial judge has discretion here....

...ch evidence should benefit a criminal defendant no more than it should benefit the state." 567 So.2d at 894. Later the court said: "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....

Westley v. State

416 So. 2d 18

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 1982 | Docket: 1655049

Cited 9 times | Published

...umulative evidence regarding appellant's statement, with the resulting prejudice that the minds of the jurors were indelibly etched with the details contained in the statement. Although no case law directly in point is cited, appellant contends that Section 90.403, Florida Evidence Code, prohibits the "needless presentation of cumulative evidence." We agree with appellant's argument that the triple presentation of his statement was overly repetitious. We note, however, that Section 90.403 provides, in 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. As this court noted in Smith v. State, 404 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the approach expressed in Section 90.403 is in agreement with the Federal Rules of Evidence and federal case law....

...which provides that opinion testimony regarding "an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact" is not objectionable"would appear to allow opinion testimony of the defendant's guilt[,] . . . such testimony is precluded on the authority of section 90.403" because "its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant." Id....

...Given the jury instruction and the medical examiner's testimony concerning the meaning of homicide, any potential for unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury was negligible. In such circumstances, the trial court clearly did not abuse the discretion it exercised under section 90.403 in allowing the use of the term homicide....

State v. Weitz

500 So. 2d 657, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 104

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 1986 | Docket: 1689616

Cited 9 times | Published

...Chemical test results are not required at trial and, when alcohol is the intoxicant, such test results merely give rise to a presumption of impairment. Impairment is ultimately a question of fact for the jury, whether or not there are chemical test results in evidence, and regardless of what those test results show. [8] Section 90.403, Fla....

Loper v. Allstate Ins. Co.

616 So. 2d 1055, 1993 WL 96764

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 1993 | Docket: 1385433

Cited 9 times | Published

...ion 943.13(7). Evidence of the commission of criminal offenses by a litigant or a witness has long been recognized to be highly prejudicial and thus inadmissible "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Section 90.403, Fla....

State v. Richards

843 So. 2d 962, 2003 WL 1916693

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2003 | Docket: 1243910

Cited 9 times | Published

...of how his fingerprints came to be in the murder victim's car). V. For the reasons stated, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and quash the order now before us. *969 Petition granted. [3] NOTES [1] The Morton decision adds the caveat that section 90.403 analysis is available in an appropriate case....

...("In addressing these issues, trial judges must have broad discretion in determining whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion." 689 So.2d at 264). No such issue has been raised here, and we express no view, one way or the other, on whether section 90.403 has any application to the proposed testimony in this case....

Travers v. State

578 So. 2d 793, 1991 WL 60030

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 1991 | Docket: 1525353

Cited 9 times | Published

...intent, and motive. Section 90.404(2)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. However, such evidence is inadmissible to prove bad character or the propensity of the accused to commit the crime, and as with all evidence, Williams rule evidence is inadmissible under section 90.403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice....

Harris v. State

449 So. 2d 892

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 11, 1984 | Docket: 1695647

Cited 9 times | Published

...is clearly relevant nevertheless inadmissible because it is simply "unnecessary" in establishing the offense? The answer, we consider, is found in Parker, wherein the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the test of "legal relevancy", [3] set out in Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, is to be applied: [P]roof of conviction is relevant evidence and is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...s "substantially outweighed" by the danger of unfair prejudice or the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. In reaching this determination, we must bear in mind that although the inadmissibility of evidence which fails to satisfy the test of section 90.403 is stated in mandatory terms, 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....

...[2] Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959). [3] See Brown v. State, 426 So.2d 76, 88-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), wherein we discussed the distinctions between "logical" relevancy, set out in Section 90.401, Florida Statutes, and "legal" relevancy, set out in section 90.403.

Reynolds v. State

660 So. 2d 778, 1995 WL 552353

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 20, 1995 | Docket: 1657555

Cited 8 times | Published

James v. State

765 So. 2d 763, 2000 WL 815667

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 2000 | Docket: 428969

Cited 8 times | Published

...character of the witness.... Since the probative value of the testimony of a witness who is called only to impeach is low, and the danger is significant that the jury will be prejudiced by the evidence used to attack credibility, the application of § 90.403 will frequently exclude attacks on the credibility of a witness who is called as a device to place the impeaching evidence before the jury....

BDO Seidman, LLP v. Banco Espirito Santo International

38 So. 3d 874, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9119, 2010 WL 2507051

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 2010 | Docket: 1658356

Cited 8 times | Published

...As to those matters, there must be an applicable hearsay exception. Stoll, 762 So.2d at 876; § 90.805 (2009); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Ehrhardt's Florida Evidence § 204.2, at 85 & n. 5 (2009). Under the Evidence Code, a request for judicial notice is also subject to analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

Flores v. Miami-Dade County

787 So. 2d 955, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8068, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1471

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2001 | Docket: 1745004

Cited 8 times | Published

...hods is admissible if it shows the bias of a witness.") (footnote omitted). The trial court does, of course, have the discretion to limit cross-examination where "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." § 90.403, Fla....

Billie v. State

863 So. 2d 323, 2003 WL 21749078

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 2003 | Docket: 1432231

Cited 8 times | Published

...ion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence" and where the evidence is submitted to show a defendant's propensity toward commission of the offense or to show a defendant's bad character, with nothing more. See § 90.403, Fla....

Mendez v. State

961 So. 2d 1088, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1793

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 2007 | Docket: 468659

Cited 8 times | Published

...First, the court required that the evidence of the collateral crime be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Second, the court required that the trial court balance the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...Coller also confirmed that Appellant wore the distinctive hat on the night of the crime. We conclude that this evidence amply satisfied the clear and convincing proof threshold. Likewise, we disagree with Appellant's contention that the trial court should have excluded the evidence pursuant to section 90.403....

...That victim, Chambers, testified that, on two occasions while McLean was an overnight guest at Chambers' home, McLean battered him by attempting to penetrate, or actually penetrating, Chambers' anus with McLean's penis. At the time of these assaults, Chambers was twelve years old. Under a section 90.403 analysis, we think the case at bar presents a more compelling case for admission of the collateral evidence than in McLean....

St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Welsh

501 So. 2d 54, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 221

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 1987 | Docket: 1527656

Cited 8 times | Published

...Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company will wish to discuss settlement with me and I await hearing from you. Although the admissible sentences contained a settlement demand for 3.5 million dollars, the remainder of the letter was highly inflammatory and prejudicial and thus barred by section 90.403, Florida Statutes, because the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effects....

Voynar v. Butler Mfg. Co.

463 So. 2d 409, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 269

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 1985 | Docket: 338925

Cited 8 times | Published

...being generally inadmissible in that type of case. Thus, it appears that the court accepted the practical application of the rule without expressly addressing its applicability to a strict liability action. Another factor influencing our decision is Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which comes into play in the question of the admissibility of subsequent changes: Relevant 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....

Johnson v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.

542 So. 2d 367, 1988 WL 2363

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 20, 1988 | Docket: 468877

Cited 8 times | Published

...ence. See State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1972); Breeding's Dania Drug Co. v. Runyon, 147 Fla. 123, 2 So.2d 376 (Fla. 1941). However, relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is out-weighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

State v. GAD

27 So. 3d 768, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1444, 2010 WL 476690

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 2010 | Docket: 1664641

Cited 8 times | Published

716 So. 2d 301, 1998 WL 422142

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1998 | Docket: 424778

Cited 7 times | Published

...525, 515 A.2d 18, 20 (1986); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 316 Pa.Super. 46, 462 A.2d 785, 787 (1983); 1 Barbara E. Bergman & Nancy Hollander, Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 4:13, at 328 (15th ed.1997). Such evidence of threats is, of course, subject to exclusion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, if the probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice....

Simons v. Jorg

384 So. 2d 1362

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1980 | Docket: 1269713

Cited 7 times | Published

...Owens, 97 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1957). Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (1979). Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

Garcia v. State

659 So. 2d 388, 1995 WL 421258

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 19, 1995 | Docket: 1747976

Cited 7 times | Published

...The appellant responded with a motion in limine, contending in part that the statements were inconsistent with each other and with evidence to be presented at trial and concluding generally that they lacked trustworthiness and reliability. He also asserted that under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991), their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...confrontation." Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372, 1377 (Fla. 1994). Furthermore, in a situation involving several child hearsay statements determined to be admissible under section 90.803(23), a defendant may still invoke the protection afforded by section 90.403 by seeking to "exclude successive hearsay witnesses whose testimony of prior consistent statements merely bolsters and adds credence to the child victim's testimony." Perry v....

...State, 593 So.2d 620, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla. 1992). Thus, such evidence, although properly admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under section 90.803(23), may nevertheless be excluded under the balancing test found in section 90.403 if the trial court determines that "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Pardo v....

...90.803(23) prior to their introduction at trial. Furthermore, in the event the trial court determines these multiple statements to be admissible under the statute, it should once again engage in the "probative value-unfair prejudice" analysis under section 90.403....

Hampton v. State

103 So. 3d 98, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 2649, 2012 WL 6621371

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2012 | Docket: 60227276

Cited 7 times | Published

Sexton v. State, 697 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.1997) (“Section 90.403 does not bar the introduction of all evidence

Love v. State

971 So. 2d 280, 2008 WL 80223

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 2008 | Docket: 1731987

Cited 7 times | Published

...discussion during which Peters said to Love, "Do you think it's okay to call me cracker, nigger?" The trial judge refused to admit the testimony, ruling that the prejudicial effect of the testimony substantially outweighed its probative value under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...rida Statutes (2006), such discretion is "constrained by a defendant's right to confront adverse *286 witnesses." Smith, 404 So.2d at 169. Similarly, the Sixth Amendment narrows a trial court's discretion to exclude evidence of a witness' bias under section 90.403....

...as they did at the scene of the arrest, then the minimal probative value of the words heard by an unidentified declarant, little more than a rumor, was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice from the inflammatory accusation. See § 90.403, *287 Fla....

Donton v. State

1 So. 3d 1092, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 80, 2009 WL 36445

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 2009 | Docket: 1653439

Cited 7 times | Published

...The determination of whether to admit collateral-crime evidence involves the defendant's constitutional right to due process. Specifically, "[c]ollateral crime evidence violates a defendant's right to due process if it is so prejudicial that it denies the defendant a fair trial." McLean, 934 So.2d at 1261. Accordingly, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), states in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, *1096 confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...izing the collateral-crime evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's overruling the defense's objections and in denying the motion for mistrial. The trial court took steps to avoid the danger of undue prejudice in accordance with section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005)....

Blair v. State

667 So. 2d 834, 1996 WL 6544

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 10, 1996 | Docket: 1511528

Cited 7 times | Published

...ings) shown to be defendant's property. 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....

Fike v. State

4 So. 3d 734, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3518, 2009 WL 485061

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 2009 | Docket: 1217055

Cited 7 times | Published

...e prior act; and (4) the presence or lack of intervening circumstances. This list is not exclusive. The trial courts should also consider other factors unique to the case. Factors other than the potential for unfair prejudice are also pertinent in a section 90.403 analysis....

Trend Coin Co. v. Honeywell, Inc.

487 So. 2d 1029, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 75

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 1986 | Docket: 1796704

Cited 7 times | Published

...he method would require departing from all common sense and reason or would require adoption of an entirely new and totally unauthenticated formula in the field of appraising." This was not the reason the evidence was excluded. The judge relied upon section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: 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....

...1st DCA 1976). Also, the trial court was well within its broad discretion in excluding the insurance application. This was a matter of weighing the probative value of the evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues under section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code....

Berube v. State

5 So. 3d 734, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1502, 2009 WL 454602

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 2009 | Docket: 1663241

Cited 7 times | Published

...ble when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity." In addition, the trial court should also exclude otherwise relevant evidence if the probative value of that evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403; Audano v....

Elysee v. State

920 So. 2d 1205, 2006 WL 348862

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2006 | Docket: 1730657

Cited 7 times | Published

...Although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the brief testimony of the mother in this case, we caution that the prejudicial impact of this type of evidence could, under different circumstances, outweigh its probative value. *1209 § 90.403, Fla....

Hildwin v. State

951 So. 2d 784, 2006 WL 3629859

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2006 | Docket: 104

Cited 7 times | Published

...are not reliable. The mock jury results and opinion testimony derived therefrom have little or no probative value, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice or confusion of issues, justifying exclusion under section 90.403....

State v. Richman

861 So. 2d 1195, 2003 WL 22899976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 2003 | Docket: 1514112

Cited 7 times | Published

...the victim's testimony that an offense occurred and to rebut the defendant's contention that the victim's testimony is fabricated. The admissibility of similar fact evidence is determined by the interaction of the rules set forth in sections 90.402, 90.403, and 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...vant solely to prove bad character or propensity," § 90.404(2)(a), or 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....

...more than one child would fabricate similar false allegations against the same person"). And there is no reason to believe that the probative value of such similar acts evidence would be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice," § 90.403, Fla....

Andrews v. State

82 So. 3d 979, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12729, 2011 WL 3558148

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 15, 2011 | Docket: 2415618

Cited 7 times | Published

...employed, practices a vocation, or is enrolled a student for any period of time in this state. § 775.21(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (2007). See also § 943.0435(1)(c), Fla. Stat. [2] Appellant failed to object at trial on undue prejudice grounds pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008)....

CW v. Department of Children and Families

814 So. 2d 488, 2002 WL 529897

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 2002 | Docket: 1368824

Cited 7 times | Published

...argues that: (i) her due process rights were violated because the trial judge watched two police videotapes outside the presence of the parties and all counsel, (ii) the videotapes were inadmissible as evidence pursuant to section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2000), (iii) the videotapes were inadmissible as evidence pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), (iv) the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof from appellee Florida Department of Children and Families to her by overruling the judgments of the guardian ad litem and expert with no factual find...

...ative waiver of the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witness; a personal on-the-record waiver by the defendant himself was not required). The arguments that the videotapes were inadmissible as evidence pursuant to sections 90.410 and 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000) were not preserved by objection to the trial court....

Smith v. State

126 So. 3d 1038, 2013 WL 5312085

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2013 | Docket: 60236167

Cited 6 times | Published

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2006). In this case, Agent Uebelacker

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

...ny.' "); see also Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 278 (Fla. 2003) ("The trial court's discretion is limited by the rules of evidence."). As for prejudice being greater than proof, the notion comes from a Florida Statute of doubtful bearing, namely section 90.403. [4] In Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1992), the court explained that the concerns reposed in section 90.403 are those underlying the common law rule barring proof of prior consistent statements. Under what theory would the "probative" weight of constitutionally required cross examination lie within the section 90.403 powers of the trial judge to exclude unfairly prejudicial testimony that would be contrary to the state's case? I find it very difficult to comprehend the reliance on the concept of prejudice being weightier than cross examination being a proper basis to bar the subject of the Pomeroy matter entirely. [5] The section 90.403 terminology refers to unfair prejudice....

...If this kind of cross examination is always relevant and admissible to carry out the essential right of the accused to confront witnesses, on what theory could its adverse effect on the State's case ever outweigh its discrediting value? No state statute, certainly not section 90.403, can overpower the Confrontation Clause. Frankly I doubt that section 90.403 has any application to this kind of cross examination except to determine whether it has become cumulative or harassing....

...Rowley suffered no physical injury at the initial traffic stop. [2] The officer answered "Yes" to the question "You weren't involved in the Pomeroy matter?," which suggests that he was not involved. [3] Which the parties homophonically refer to as "K-9" duty. [4] § 90.403, Fla....

...anger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."). [5] In this case we can rule out the idea of cumulative evidence because the judge ruled the entire line of questioning out. [6] § 90.403, Fla....

Denmark v. State

646 So. 2d 754, 1994 WL 551527

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 1994 | Docket: 1405323

Cited 6 times | Published

...iently linked it to the appellants. Consequently, any probative value it may have had was substantially outweighed by the danger of its unfair prejudice, as well as its tendency to confuse and mislead the jury, and it should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991)....

47 So. 3d 941, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17673, 2010 WL 4628532

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2010 | Docket: 2400408

Cited 6 times | Published

...Initially, the trial court stated that defense counsel made insufficient efforts to locate and subpoena Vega for trial. The defense, however, provided the trial court with law stating that proof of unavailability is not necessary to introduce prior sworn testimony. Thereafter, the trial court decided to use a 90.403 analysis to keep the evidence out....

...court sentenced the defendant to 30 years in prison. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding *943 Vega's prior testimony. The State contends that the trial court properly excluded the evidence under a 90.403 analysis because the testimony would have only confused and mislead the jury....

...cross, and redirect examination. Conversely, evidence may be excluded "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....

...Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. SALTER, J. (concurring). I concur that Ms. Vega's prior trial testimony was relevant, admissible, and erroneously excluded. The State did not actually raise and argue an objection based on 90.403....

...by the defense if (as here) the opposing party was afforded a full opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The trial court then observed that the Ehrhardt commentary on 90.803(22) included *944 a comment that "all evidence is always subject to a 90.403 analysis." The State expressed concerns that it had insufficient time to subpoena Ms....

...Vega (because it would want to cross-examine her on certain points in person), that the State would need additional rebuttal witnesses, and that reading the transcript of Ms. Vega's prior trial testimony might take two days. Ultimately, the prejudice found by the trial court for purposes of 90.403 was "gamesmanship" in demanding speedy trial followed by the failure to find and subpoena Ms....

...The trial court also stated that both sides had called Ms. Vega's testimony "totally incredible" and that "the testimony would only confuse the jury." A review of Ms. Vega's prior trial testimony does not reveal the kinds of prejudice or unfairness to be weighed under section 90.403. Late notice or "gamesmanship" regarding the use of the testimony in the defense case is a different issue governed by other rules and decisions. The burden is on the party objecting to the admissibility of the evidence on the basis of 90.403 "to demonstrate that the probative value is `substantially outweighed' by one of the countervailing factors." Ehrhardt, § 403.1 at 184 (footnote and citation omitted)....

Mims v. State

872 So. 2d 453, 2004 WL 1102825

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2004 | Docket: 1357308

Cited 6 times | Published

..., including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. Under section 90.403, "[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." We recognize that o...

Johnson v. State

40 So. 3d 883, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10570, 2010 WL 2882467

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 2010 | Docket: 1219254

Cited 6 times | Published

...ts probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Indeed, "relevancy is not the only test for admissibility." Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1, 21 (Fla.2003) (citing Sexton v. State, 697 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.1997)). Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008), even if evidence is relevant, it may be inadmissible if the "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of...

...Here, however, the record does not show that the trial court weighed the probative value of the evidence against prejudicial impact before deciding to admit the *887 evidence. The record is thus silent as to what factors, if any, the court considered in overruling the section 90.403 objection....

...vagina. [2] Defense counsel specifically argued that the probative value of evidence of the victim's suicide attempts was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, thus preserving the error for appeal and obligating the trial court to apply the section 90.403 balancing test. See Reynolds v. State, 660 So.2d 778, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (stating that counsel must specifically object to the admission of relevant evidence under section 90.403 to require the trial court to resolve the issue and to preserve the issue for appeal)....

State v. Richardson

621 So. 2d 752, 1993 WL 242584

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1993 | Docket: 1265261

Cited 6 times | Published

...act outweighs its probative value. Henry v. State, 574 So.2d 73, 75 (Fla. 1991); State v. Vazquez, 419 So.2d 1088, 1090 (Fla. 1982); Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 909 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981). See § 90.403, Fla....

...Before the trial court excludes such evidence, the probative value of the evidence must be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Bryan v. State, 533 So.2d 744, 747 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 1765, 104 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989) (citing § 90.403, Fla....

King v. State

89 So. 3d 209, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 103, 2012 WL 399863, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 302

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2012 | Docket: 60308731

Cited 6 times | Published

Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654, 658 (Fla.1959)). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[r]elevant

Hadden v. State

670 So. 2d 77, 1996 WL 61135

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 1996 | Docket: 1245758

Cited 6 times | Published

...I pointed out that the Florida Evidence Code, particularly sections 90.401, .402, .403 and.702, Florida Statutes, contains no requirement of a novel scientific technique's general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs; that all relevant evidence is deemed admissible unless, pursuant to section 90.403, it should be excluded on grounds of prejudice or confusion....

...Indeed, the only specific authority cited in Ward directly supporting its conclusion that such testimony is reliable is Kruse v. State , which Ward described as holding that "expert testimony on posttraumatic stress syndrome [is] admissible in a child sexual assault case when proven relevant under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and more probative than prejudicial." Id. Obviously, the Ward court's references to the term "relevant" and to section 90.403 (the Evidence Code's balancing test) strongly infer that the court in Ward reached its decision by employing the relevance standard and not that of Frye....

...Glendening reiterated the time-worn rule recognizing that the admissibility of expert opinion testimony is tested on appeal by the abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. It is obvious that in formulating the above procedure, the court relied exclusively on sections 90.403 and 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code and not on Frye....

Johnson v. State

595 So. 2d 132, 1992 WL 25819

...to introduce the expert opinion. Specifically, (1) the opinion evidence must be helpful to the trier of fact; (2) the witness must be qualified as an expert; (3) the opinion evidence must be applied to evidence offered at trial; and (4) pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991), the evidence, although technically relevant, must not present a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value....

...Our review of the record has revealed no abuse of the trial court's discretion in these preliminary findings. *191 Furthermore, our review of the computer animation videotape in the context of this record convinces us that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in its balancing analysis pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991). See Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1991)(trial court has broad discretion in determining whether evidence should be admitted when there is a section 90.403 objection)....

Childers v. State

936 So. 2d 619, 2006 WL 2620273

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2006 | Docket: 2527183

Cited 5 times | Published

...Consequently, the exclusion of this evidence was not error. Even if the trial judge was mistaken to say that the evidence was not logically relevant, he would have been duty bound to hold that it was legally irrelevant and therefore inadmissible under section 90.403....

...See § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2002). The majority affirmed, reasoning that, even though the trial court erred on its determination of relevance, the ruling should nevertheless be upheld because the evidence in question should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes. If any one statute on the books in Florida, and particularly any statute in the Evidence Code, begs the exercise of sound discretion by a trial judge, it is section 90.403....

...In applying the balancing test, the trial court necessarily exercises its discretion. State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla. 1988); see Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 309 (Fla.1997). Accordingly, trial courts are possessed of broad discretion in making determinations under section 90.403. See, e.g., Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994); McClain, 525 So.2d at 422. The question of bias, at issue in the present case, "is subject to balancing under the provisions of section 90.403, and a trial court's determination of how far an inquiry into bias may proceed is within the trial court's discretion." Tobin v....

...By its application of the "tipsy coachman" rule in the present case, the majority has essentially applied a trial court standard of discretion in a case where the trial court never exercised discretion itself. As a result, this court's application of its own discretion under section 90.403 is not subject to review under any standard and, arguably, the whole purpose of the statute has been defeated because the trial court has never made the critical, initial consideration....

...(3) IF THE RULE DOES ESTABLISH A JURISDICTIONAL THRESHOLD, WHAT IS THAT THRESHOLD? On the majority's rationale for affirming, we should certify the following question: MAY A DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL UTILIZE THE "TIPSY COACHMAN" DOCTRINE BY APPLYING SECTION 90.403, FLORIDA STATUTES, IN A CASE WHERE THE TRIAL COURT HAS NEVER EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION CONCERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCE IN QUESTION? Finally, we should certify direct and express conflict on the restitution question....

Benjamin v. Tandem Healthcare, Inc.

93 So. 3d 1076, 2012 WL 2400880, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10488

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2012 | Docket: 60310426

Cited 5 times | Published

court’s additional gatekeeping function under section 90.403 as “critical” with respect to admission of

Khadafy Kareem Mullens v. State of Florida

197 So. 3d 16, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 279, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 1255, 2016 WL 3348429

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 2016 | Docket: 3079195

Cited 5 times | Published

defendants the right to a fair trial. See, e.g., § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2008) (excluding relevant but unduly

State v. Pardo

582 So. 2d 1225, 1991 WL 120781

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 1991 | Docket: 1716043

884 So. 2d 312, 2004 WL 1905755

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 27, 2004 | Docket: 1281835

Cited 5 times | Published

...[1] He seeks a new trial, claiming error because the court permitted the State to introduce Williams [2] rule testimony about a similar incident involving another youth. We hold that the prejudicial effect of a portion of the challenged evidence outweighed any probative value it had in this case. See § 90.403, Fla....

...concerning admissibility of Williams rule evidence in child molestation cases. See McLean v. State, 854 So.2d 796, 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). [4] But even under this relaxed standard, the circuit court still must perform its gatekeeping function under section 90.403, that is, it must weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. See id. at 802; see also Fla. S. Comm. on Judiciary, CS for SB 2012 (2001) Staff Analysis 4 (Apr. 18, 2001) (on file with comm.) ("However the evidence would still be subject to the s. 90.403, F.S., scrutiny of weighing its probative value against its prejudicial effect.")....

Krawzak v. Government Emp. Ins. Co.

660 So. 2d 306

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 1995 | Docket: 1640099

Cited 5 times | Published

..., the testimony of the personnel assistant could have helped to bolster the credibility of plaintiff's testimony before the jury. We do not find the exclusion of this evidence justified as constituting "needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

Usher v. State

642 So. 2d 29, 1994 WL 419074

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1994 | Docket: 549844

Cited 5 times | Published

...vents and hearsay statements of a third party not on trial, the events and statements which took place after the appellant was taken home were inadmissible because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

Olsten Health Services, Inc. v. Cody

979 So. 2d 1221, 2008 WL 1883565

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 2008 | Docket: 1714134

Cited 5 times | Published

...ome" photographs was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Although the photographs [1] in question are not pleasant to look at, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting them into evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

967 So. 2d 995, 2007 WL 3118863

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2007 | Docket: 1733549

Cited 4 times | Published

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading a jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403. The similarity of the collateral act of molestation and charged offense is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403....

...The trial courts are gatekeepers in ensuring that evidence of prior acts of child molestation is not so prejudicial that the defendant is convicted based on the prior sexual misconduct. . . . . . . . The trial court's gatekeeping function is critical. In every case, the trial court must conduct the weighing required by section 90.403....

Shaw v. Jain

914 So. 2d 458, 2005 WL 2662548

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 2005 | Docket: 1767843

Guerrero v. State

125 So. 3d 811, 2013 WL 950033, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3959

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 2013 | Docket: 60236077

Cited 4 times | Published

substantially outweigh any probative value. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1995). [748 So.2d at 1023] .... Moreover

SHREITEH v. State

987 So. 2d 761, 2008 WL 2744309

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2008 | Docket: 1723745

Cited 4 times | Published

...For example, three teenagers, a six-year-old, and a yo-yo present a different situation than a 21-year-old with a handgun. We find no error in the trial court's ruling precluding appellant from questioning the detective about the police reports. See also § 90.403, Fla....

County of Volusia v. Kemp

764 So. 2d 770, 2000 WL 966051

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 2000 | Docket: 470354

Cited 4 times | Published

...As we note, the existence of probable cause is an issue of law for the court, not for expert witnesses, to decide.") (citation omitted). In addition, expert testimony should be precluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

Downs v. State

65 So. 3d 594, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11003, 2011 WL 2694558

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2011 | Docket: 2362204

Cited 4 times | Published

...Evidence must be relevant in order to be admissible. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. [(2009)]. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence "tending to prove or disprove a material fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. [(2009)]. While all admissible evidence must be relevant, not all relevant evidence is admissible; section 90.403 mandates that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403, Fla....

...ble in evidence. Id. at 1231. A gun different than the one used in a crime is not relevant to prove that the crime occurred. Id. "Any marginal relevance in this type of testimony [is] substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice" under section 90.403....

OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches, P.A. v. Mejia

134 So. 3d 1084, 2014 WL 51896, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 148

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 2014 | Docket: 60239028

Cited 4 times | Published

consideration still was not an abuse of discretion. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, renders otherwise relevant

White v. State

971 So. 2d 972, 2008 WL 36620

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 2, 2008 | Docket: 2549389

Cited 4 times | Published

...would be admissible in a motion hearing on the issue of probable cause. See § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2006). However, in a jury trial, the relevance of general criminal behavior testimony "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403, Fla....

Murray v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc.

429 So. 2d 24

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 1983 | Docket: 1667542

Cited 4 times | Published

...unity to impeach such testimony with the Almaden's postaccident admission that the cork "will eject" spontaneously. Almaden argues that evidence of the postaccident label was correctly rejected because it was unfairly prejudicial within the terms of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...e to the opposing party. Virtually all evidence is prejudicial or it isn't material. The prejudice must be "unfair." 561 F.2d at 618. We do not view Almaden's postaccident admission that the cork "will eject" to be *27 "unfair" within the meaning of section 90.403....

Quentin Marcus Truehill v. State of Florida

211 So. 3d 930, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 223, 2017 WL 727167, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 374

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 23, 2017 | Docket: 4609129

Cited 4 times | Published

subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2010). Id. In establishing

Cited 3 times | Published

...The interview with the children's unit in the state attorney's office was videotaped. We conclude that the trial court's determination of reliability is supported by the record. The trial court acted within its discretion in rejecting the defendant's argument that the evidence should be excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

Williams v. State

70 So. 3d 726, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14947, 2011 WL 4374283

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2011 | Docket: 2356421

Cited 3 times | Published

...and the cause of death, relieve the state of its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."). Although the photographs were relevant, we must next determine whether their probative value was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...e environment, maggots, and animal depredation circumstances not attributable to him. To the contrary, the severe decomposition around the wife's neck was arguably the result of the crime: as Dr. Perper testified, maggots attack stab wounds first. Section 90.403 required the trial court to balance the photographs' relevance against their prejudicial nature....

Millien v. State

766 So. 2d 475, 2000 WL 1345946

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 20, 2000 | Docket: 1329415

Cited 3 times | Published

...sent his theory of defense, see Vannier v. State, 714 So.2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), this right is subject to the reasonable discretion of the trial judge in controlling the hearing and limiting unnecessary, cumulative, and repetitive testimony. See § 90.403, Fla....

Collins v. State

698 So. 2d 1337, 1997 WL 564209

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 1997 | Docket: 1524249

Cited 3 times | Published

Selver v. State

568 So. 2d 1331, 1990 WL 164985

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 1990 | Docket: 533475

Cited 3 times | Published

...to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, we must consider whether the arguably relevant evidence in the statements, namely the victim's fear of appellant, is rendered inadmissible by this extraneous and inadmissible hearsay. Florida Statute 90.403 provides: 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 an authoritative discussion of the balancing process between the admission of Section 90.803(3)(a) state of mind hearsay with Section 90.403, the court in United States v....

Coverdale v. State

940 So. 2d 558, 2006 WL 3040291

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 2006 | Docket: 1157901

Cited 3 times | Published

...See Jorgenson v. State, 714 So.2d 423, 427 (Fla.1998). However, evidence of other crimes, "even if relevant, should not be admitted if its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice." Bryan v. State, 533 So.2d 744, 746 (Fla.1988); see also § 90.403 ("Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially *562 outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.")....

...bullet in her head or that it would be nice to see her head blown off was unduly prejudicial. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony. A harmless error analysis is applicable to the improper admission of testimony under section 90.403....

MARK GORDON ANDERSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA

229 So. 3d 383

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2017 | Docket: 6171807

Cited 3 times | Published

a detective. Appellant contends that under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the prejudicial impact of

Parker v. State

20 So. 3d 966, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15557, 2009 WL 3273213

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2009 | Docket: 1640178

Cited 3 times | Published

...See § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2008). However, relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading of the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

Estrich v. State

995 So. 2d 613, 2008 WL 4998757

625 F.3d 1319

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 8, 2010 | Docket: 1544438

Cited 3 times | Published

...probative value, if any, was outweighed by its unfair prejudice, and that it constituted improper bolstering of Junior’s testimony. The trial court ruled that Appellant could not discuss the Elliott case verdict because, among other reasons, under Fla. Stat. § 90.403, “the prejudice would outweigh any probative value,” and excluded the Notice of Revocation and the court’s ruling on it as irrelevant.1 R.E....

...M at 16; see R.E. Doc. 8 Ex. M at 14. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the Notice, finding that the Notice’s admission would necessitate admission of the trial court’s quashing of the Notice and determined, under Fla. Stat. § 90.403, that the Notice’s probative value did not outweigh the prejudice it would cause the 2 Before the panel of the Florida District Court of Appeal issued its opinion, which would have reversed the lower court, the full appe...

...Appellant sought to question Junior about his perceptions of his role in the failure of the Elliott prosecution and to discover 10 Contrary to the assertions of the dissent, we do not address Rule 403 of the Florida Rules of Evidence, Fla. Stat. § 90.403....

...lliot acquittal. Thus, as Judge Barzilay explains, our review is de novo and AEDPA deference does not apply. Cone v. Bell, 129 S.Ct. at 1784 (2009). The dissent appears to suggest that evidence which is properly excludable under Fla. Stat. § 90.403 can never violate the Confrontation Clause, under any set of circumstances. As a threshold matter, this argument was never made by the state, either in this court or any other, and is not properly before this court. In any case, Fla. Stat. § 90.403 asks courts to determine whether relevant evidence is otherwise inadmissible because its probative value is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation...

...Revocation of Terms of Plea Agreement, and (2) the not guilty verdict the jury returned at the trial of Joseph Franklin Elliott. The District Court of Appeal 35 rejected Childers’s claim under Fla. Stat. § 90.403 because the probative value of such evidence was outweighed by the prejudice it would have caused if presented to the jury....

...gnores the commands of AEDPA and Supreme Court precedent, Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989), and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000). That is, instead of determining whether the District Court of Appeal’s § 90.403 ruling is “contrary to ....

...and Williams, and adjudicates Childers’s Confrontation Clause claim as if AEDPA and those decisions were nonexistent. In part I, I demonstrate that under AEDPA, Teague, and Williams, Childers is not entitled to federal habeas relief because the District Court of Appeal applied § 90.403 in a manner that was not contrary to clearly established federal law....

...Notice of Revocation and the Elliott acquittal in conformance with the Florida law of evidence. Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585, 592–96 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (en banc) (per curiam). The court rejected Childers’s Notice of Revocation argument under Fla. Stat. § 90.403, Florida’s counterpart to Federal Rule of Evidence 403.8 Section 90.403 (“Florida 403”), “Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion,” states: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misle...

...probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” The criteria for excluding evidence under Fla. Stat. § 90.403 and the federal rule are substantially the same, except that the latter also permits the exclusion of evidence if the probative value is outweighed by “undue delay [or] waste of time.” 9 As indicated in the text supra, t...

...oth the Notice of Revocation and the court’s rejection of the Notice were irrelevant. The District Court of Appeal disagreed; both pieces of evidence were relevant. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on another ground, an application of § 90.403, which it was permitted to do under state law....

...unreliable evidence. Because the prejudice to the State that would be created by the admission of the notice to revoke substantially outweighs the very limited probative value of this evidence, the notice was excludable under section 90.403, Florida Statutes. Id....

Thomas v. State

959 So. 2d 427, 2007 WL 1828367

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2007 | Docket: 528140

Cited 3 times | Published

...engaged in conduct that, in the words of the prosecutor, was "shocking to even an experienced officer." The prejudice flowing from this evidence substantially outweighed any slight probative value it may have had, thus calling for its exclusion. See § 90.403; Henry, 574 So.2d at 75....

BENITEZ-SALDANA v. State

67 So. 3d 320, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 9616, 2011 WL 2462964

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 2011 | Docket: 2363062

Cited 3 times | Published

...And anyany day and she could have had a miscarriage."; (2) "I am not going to stick my neck out for you anymore."; (3) "I will not put my hands in the fire for you anymore." Defense counsel had objected that these *325 statements made the telephone call more prejudicial than probative. See § 90.403, Fla....

State v. Blackwell

787 So. 2d 963, 2001 WL 690443

1 So. 3d 1122, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 339, 2009 WL 127784

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 21, 2009 | Docket: 1653978

Cited 3 times | Published

...She recalled Appellant's engaging in sexual activity with her during the period following the surgery when she was still bandaged. IV. The Adequacy of the Williams Rule Inquiry Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court violated due process by failing to conduct a thorough balancing test pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), before admitting collateral-crime evidence....

...es (2005), and constitute "child molestation." Noting that propensity is now admissible, the trial court correctly acknowledged that the law still requires the court to conduct a balancing inquiry pursuant to another safeguard evidentiary provision, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), which states: 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....

...Any error in the balancing test is harmless, given that the factors enunciated by the Supreme Court of Florida in McLean, 934 So.2d at 1262, are satisfied by the collateral-crime evidence relating to the prior acts of sexual activity between Appellant and the same victim. McLean states that the section 90.403 balancing test involves the following assessment: In assessing whether the probative value of evidence of previous molestations is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the trial court should evaluate: (1) the sim...

Lebron v. State

894 So. 2d 849, 2005 WL 67026

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 2005 | Docket: 1767705

Cited 3 times | Published

...However, the State may not introduce testimony or evidence pertaining to prior violent felony convictions that is irrelevant, violates the defendant's confrontation rights, or where the probative value of the evidence is far outweighed by prejudicial effect. See Rhodes, 547 So.2d at 1205; see also § 90.403, Fla....

...State, 495 So.2d 744, 745 (Fla.1986). The trial court may not, however, admit evidence that simply relitigates the issue of the defendant's guilt, see Teffeteller, 495 So.2d at 745, or evidence that fails the test balancing probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

804 So. 2d 390, 2001 WL 1190894

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2001 | Docket: 1699489

Cited 2 times | Published

...Some examples given involve the physician testifying for his own patient. The book itself is not part of the record. The jury returned a verdict awarding appellant his past medical expenses of $19,766.38 and future medical expenses of $10,000. However, the jury did not find a permanent injury. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), provides: 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. Evidence of bias is subject to balancing under the provisions of section 90.403, and a trial court's determination of how far an inquiry into bias may proceed is within the trial court's discretion....

..."Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact ... an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion." Sims v. Brown, *394 574 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1991) (quoting Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So.2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)); accord § 90.403, Fla....

...at 360. We therefore affirm. SHAHOOD, J., concurs specially with opinion. FARMER, J., dissents with opinion. SHAHOOD, J., concurring specially. I agree entirely with the majority. I write only to quote from the statute cited by the majority, to emphasize section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), which provides: 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....

...ially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, (or) misleading the jury...." I conclude that, in this case, deference should be given to the trial judge with respect to the admissibility of the evidence in question based on section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...th a mere limit on how much questioning will be tolerated. It is the difference between allowing some or allowing none at all that the majority confuses. [5] The power to exclude some relevant evidence in its entirety for certain reasons arises from section 90.403, which currently provides: "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 eviden...

...In effect the rationale is that it would be an "undue waste of time" to allow the party to impeach the expert with his own book. [6] Neither *398 the trial judge, the defendants nor the majority, however, can cite a single Florida case where a party was utterly precluded under section 90.403 from making any use of non-cumulative, clear evidence of bias and prejudiceindisputably admissible in all other respectssimply because such evidence would amount to an undue waste of time....

...itness and plaintiff's counsel. The doctor and lawyer had agreed to refer cases to each other and had shared the expenses of a runner who recruited clients for both. Plaintiff argued that the court should exclude the cross-examination entirely under section 90.403 because it showed conduct that amounted to a crime....

...the presentation of evidence so as to `avoid needless consumption of time.' Evidence which has minimal probative value can be excluded under section 90.612(1)(b) when it is a waste of time, even though the court cannot exclude it on that basis under section 90.403." Charles W....

O'NEIL v. Gilbert

625 So. 2d 982, 1993 WL 431594

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 1993 | Docket: 1517513

Cited 2 times | Published

...witness and uncalled for by the circumstances."); Mosley v. State, 616 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same); Canales v. Compania de Vapores Realma, S.A., 564 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); DeSantis v. Acevedo, 528 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); § 90.403, Fla....

Farrell v. State

682 So. 2d 204, 1996 WL 612776

593 So. 2d 1069, 1992 WL 3679

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 1992 | Docket: 446441

Cited 2 times | Published

...[I]n order for the similar facts to be relevant the points of similarity must have some special character or be so unusual as to point to the defendant. This court has clearly recognized an interplay between § 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1989), and § 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). In Carr v. State, 578 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court reversed a conviction because of the admission of similar fact evidence for the sole purpose of showing the defendant's propensity to possess cocaine. The court observed that under § 90.403, relevant evidence should be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Recently, this court has had occasion to further examine, and reaffirm, the relationship between § 90.403 and § 90.404(2)....

...d by the pertinent provisions in the Florida Evidence Code. Section 90.401 states, `Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.' Section 90.402 states, `All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.' Section 90.403 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.' The sponsor note to this section explains that `nothing that fails to meet the tests of §§ 90.401 and 90.403 may be admitted.' Accordingly, section 90.404(2)(a) recognizes the interplay of section 90.401 and 90.403 by specifying that `similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue.' Since similar fact evidence of other crimes is inherently prejudicial to a criminal defendant's right to...

...The case law leads to the inescapable conclusion that § 90.404(2) provides no meaningful guide for admissibility, unless the trial court is required in each instance to weigh the probative value of the proposed similar fact evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, as required by § 90.403....

...Clemons, 676 F.2d 122 (5th Cir.1982), and United States v. King, 703 F.2d 119 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 127, 78 L.Ed.2d 123 (1983), presume such a requirement, and analyze admissibility of the extrinsic evidence in light of Federal Rule 403, the substantial equivalent of § 90.403 in Florida. Indeed, the majority in the present case admits that the trial court must make a § 90.403 determination....

...merely prove identity (which it did not logically do), but to demonstrate Bennett's criminal propensity. The rule requiring more than a mere general similarity is quite easily explained when one considers, even for a moment, the relationship between § 90.403 and § 90.404(2), discussed above. The very fact that two criminal transactions, allegedly involving the same defendant, have "strikingly similar" characteristics, serves to tip the § 90.403 scales in favor of probative value. On the other hand, where the similarity test is ignored, the unfair prejudice side of the § 90.403 scale is not counterbalanced, and the proffered evidence does not reach the threshold of admissibility required by § 90.403....

Children's Palace, Inc. v. Johnson

609 So. 2d 755, 1992 WL 358241

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 1992 | Docket: 1473303

Cited 2 times | Published

...This issue requires resolution of two questions: whether the worthless check convictions are admissible under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1989), and if so, whether they should nonetheless be excluded because their probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Therefore, we conclude that all the convictions are admissible as impeachment evidence. Appellees' main argument, however, is that the trial court correctly excluded the convictions because their probative value was substantially outweighed by their unfair prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). A trial court's determination under section 90.403 is generally accorded great deference....

Ritz v. State

101 So. 3d 939, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20888, 2012 WL 6028093

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 2012 | Docket: 60226492

Cited 2 times | Published

outweighed by its prejudicial effect”); see also § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2007) (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible

& SC13-1065 Harold Blake v. State of Florida and Harold Blake v. Timothy H. Cannon, etc.

180 So. 3d 89

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 2014 | Docket: 2611590

Cited 2 times | Published

...guns from the car because at that time, she had received threatening phone calls and was “a little bit” afraid of Blake or his family. Blake has not demonstrated that trial counsel erred. Blake asserts that the testimony could have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), which provided 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.” This argument is without merit....

Byrd v. BT FOODS, INC.

26 So. 3d 600, 22 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1445, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18431, 2009 WL 4282945

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2009 | Docket: 239434

Cited 2 times | Published

...ority granted by law...." [8] *606 In this case, Byrd did not object to the hearsay nature of the no cause determination letters; she argued that the probative value of the letters was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes. Section 90.403 provides, in pertinent part, 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....

Horton v. State

943 So. 2d 1016, 2006 WL 3689022

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 2006 | Docket: 537290

Cited 2 times | Published

...as substantive evidence. Although a prior conviction would tend to prove that a defendant had actual notice of the duty to register, the trial court should have analyzed the question of its admissibility by applying the balancing test required under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2004). Professor Ehrhardt has described a trial court's responsibility in applying section 90.403: The court must weigh the logical strength of the proffered evidence to prove a material fact or issue against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion....

...ned when he was released from prison acknowledging the address change requirement). We agree with Horton that the prejudice outweighed the probative value of the prior conviction, and because the trial court failed to conduct a proper analysis under section 90.403, it abused its discretion in allowing the prior conviction into evidence. See Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 887 (Fla.1998) (discussing section 90.403 balancing)....

State v. Aylesworth

666 So. 2d 181, 1995 WL 739058

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 1995 | Docket: 1510956

Cited 2 times | Published

...LaSpada, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee Deborah Aylesworth. *182 FRANK, Judge. The state has appealed from three orders of the trial court stemming from the prosecution of Deborah and Harry Aylesworth. We affirm the first order. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), when it granted the Aylesworths' joint motion in limine and excluded settlement agreements arising from related civil litigation....

...Prior to the filing of criminal charges, the Aylesworths' activities resulted in multiple civil actions, many of which were ultimately resolved in settlement agreements. The stipulated facts and the admissions contained in the agreements are relevant to the criminal charges. The trial court, however, consistent with section 90.403 excluded the agreements because of potential prejudice or confusion, and barred the admission of compromise and offers to compromise relying for that determination upon section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1993). Under section 90.403, relevant evidence may be foreclosed where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...A trial court's action taken under this rule will not, however, be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1988); Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1981). We find no abuse in the trial court's application of section 90.403 in this instance and affirm its order....

Porter v. VISTA BLDG. MAINTENANCE SERV.

630 So. 2d 205, 1993 WL 513942

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 1993 | Docket: 1519526

Cited 2 times | Published

...the slip-and-fall trial was erroneous. Where, as here, it was undisputed that the plaintiff was sober at the time of the incident, the probative value of such evidence, if any, was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudicial effect. § 90.403, Fla....

Matthews v. State

772 So. 2d 600, 2000 WL 1760236

736 F.3d 1331, 2013 WL 6169275, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23019

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 14, 2013 | Docket: 142762

Cited 1 times | Published

931 So. 2d 187, 2006 WL 1559734

Mickell v. State

41 So. 3d 960, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10845, 2010 WL 2925351

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 2010 | Docket: 2398360

Cited 1 times | Published

...Mickell argues that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting evidence of an uncharged collateral crimeMickell giving a false name to the trooperbecause the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

KEVIN STEWART v. DEAN D. DRALEAUS

226 So. 3d 990, 2017 WL 3169272, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10688

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2017 | Docket: 6126106

Cited 1 times | Published

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90,403, Fla. Stat. (2013). In weighing the probative

Young v. State

122 So. 3d 891, 2013 WL 3811816, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11586

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 2013 | Docket: 60234799

Cited 1 times | Published

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2007). We are aware that the danger

Crumbie v. State

16 So. 3d 893, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10120, 2009 WL 2191352

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 2009 | Docket: 2149214

Cited 1 times | Published

...d the truth seeking function of a trial and may be employed when redirect examination serves to reveal the whole story of a transaction only partly explained in cross examination); see also Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688 (Fla.1996) (holding that section 90.403, Florida Statutes, did not preclude testimony that a critical state witness knew that the defendant had previously murdered a child, when the credibility of the witness was at issue due to his failure initially to fully cooperate with...

...HAWKES, C.J., and ALLEN, J., concur; CLARK, J., dissents with opinion. CLARK, J., dissent. I disagree with the majority and would reverse the conviction. Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed *896 by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...ss if it is so prejudicial that it denies the defendant a fair trial." The supreme court emphasized the significance of a trial court weighing the probative value of evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice and explained: [T]he application of section 90.403 should always render evidence inadmissible when it has such a prejudicial effect....

Crum v. State

433 So. 2d 1384

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 1983 | Docket: 1425862

Cited 1 times | Published

...The opinion strongly implies that a trial court should find that the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading of the jury and of needless presentation, substantially outweigh the probative value of the hypnotically aided testimony resulting in its exclusion from evidence under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1981), unless the court's suggestions are followed....

...[3] In Snead, judges from the First District Court of Appeal sat for the Fifth District Court of Appeal. [4] This does not mean, of course, that a trial court might not in a given case treat evidence resulting from hypnosis just as any other evidence and find it inadmissible for the reasons given in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1981).

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

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2012). We do not agree that the preamble

Richard Allen Johnson v. State of Florida

135 So. 3d 1002, 2014 WL 68134

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 2014 | Docket: 400987

Cited 1 times | Published

...Accordingly, the potential for unfair prejudice . . . 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. Id....

...- 21 - regarding the prejudicial nature of Vitale’s testimony is superior to this Court’s.” However, Johnson overlooks that the prejudicial impact this Court was referring to was prejudice for purposes of application of the section 90.403 evidentiary balancing test....

...even though "[a]s a general rule, a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed, absent an abuse of discretion." McCray v. State, 919 So.2d 647, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citations omitted). The weighing contemplated by section 90.403 is for the trial court, in the first instance, and here the trial court ruled the subsequent ban altogether irrelevant, so that no weighing took place below....

Bradley v. Brotman

836 So. 2d 1129, 2003 WL 354873

...Michael Jackson very well may be the mastermind of this group. . . . He was the one accessing it but what we know, what we know is [Wade] was with them the whole time.” Accordingly, Wade has not shown that upon a motion by trial counsel, the photographs would have been excluded under section 90.403. In addition, trial counsel cannot be deemed deficient because trial counsel made a reasonable, strategic decision not to object to the photographs....

Felice John Veach v. State of Florida

254 So. 3d 624

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 2018 | Docket: 7775010

Cited 1 times | Published

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2016). “‘Relevant evidence is inherently

Robert Roy Macomber v. State of Florida

254 So. 3d 1098

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 2018 | Docket: 7774961

Cited 1 times | Published

tending to prove or disprove a material fact.”); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. ROSE POLLARI, etc

228 So. 3d 115

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 2017 | Docket: 6145382

Cited 1 times | Published

of issues, [or] misleading the jury” (quoting § 90.403, Fla. Stat.)); accord Tolbert v. State,

252 So. 3d 374

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2018 | Docket: 7567946

Cited 1 times | Published

. . . shall not be admitted into evidence”); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2010) (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible

Candice Jones, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ryland Nye v. Michael Alayon

162 So. 3d 360, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5118, 2015 WL 1545005

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2015 | Docket: 2679417

Cited 1 times | Published

...of Nye’s survivors. It proffered testimony from the decedent’s wife that she was additionally traumatized to know that a law enforcement officer would have left her husband without trying to help or respond. The court conducted an analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2012), and determined that the probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, because the wife’s main trauma was the occurrence and manner of the accident itself. On the issue...

...She claimed that because this information increased the wife’s pain and suffering resulting from the accident, it should have been admitted. The court listened to the proffer of the wife’s testimony on this issue and made a probative versus prejudicial analysis under section 90.403, Florida 5 Statutes (2012)....

...mit or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. State, 40 So. 3d 883, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So. 2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2012), provides: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ....

Britton v. State

928 So. 2d 386, 2006 WL 888056

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

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 2023 | Docket: 68034173

Published

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, see § 90.403, Fla. Stat., or is otherwise excluded by the Florida

Swafford v. State

533 So. 2d 270, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 595, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 1070

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1988 | Docket: 64638288

Published

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

Van Hubbard v. State

748 So. 2d 288, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12292, 1998 WL 658264

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 1998 | Docket: 64793790

Published

suspended. Such testimony was inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), because the danger

146 So. 3d 171

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 2014 | Docket: 1310675

Published

...was sleeping on a pull-out couch. Defense counsel argued that under McLean v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2006), the trial court was required to first determine whether the evidence of a collateral crime was clear and convincing, and if so, then to determine, under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, if the danger of unfair prejudice to Harrelson would substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence. Interestingly, counsel suggested it would be more efficient—and possibly would avoid “having a mini trial”—if the trial court were to assume, initially, the evidence was clear and convincing, and proceed with the 90.403 analysis....

...2d at 1263 (approving use of collateral crime evidence admitted under section 90.404(2)(b) to corroborate alleged victim’s testimony where identity is not an issue). That said, we do not believe this conclusion mandates a new trial because the trial court did perform the section 90.403 “gatekeeping” analysis required under McLean....

Layton Todd Mizell v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2022 | Docket: 65365633

Published

impermissible use of character evidence, and under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2018), as more prejudicial

Tyrone T. Johnson v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 19, 2024 | Docket: 68934023

Published

discretion in admitting it. Id. at 344 (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2007)). That is not what happened

TREMAINE BEARD v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 2019 | Docket: 16211759

Published

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

STATE OF FLORIDA v. MARCIA LYNNE SILLS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 2019 | Docket: 16211760

Published

Published

thereby rendering such evidence inadmissible. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2023); Rodriguez v. State, 753 So

Ricardo Casco v. State

150 So. 3d 838, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17598, 2014 WL 5460623

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 2014 | Docket: 1453493

Published

...3d 518, 528 (Fla. 2009)). However, “[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.” § 90.403, Fla....

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 2021 | Docket: 60663528

Published

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2010). The fact that the gun

Terrance Washington v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 2019 | Docket: 16357049

Published

“needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id.; § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). In determining whether the

Collier v. State

681 So. 2d 856, 1996 WL 595191

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 1996 | Docket: 1722309

Published

...possessed substantial probative value which outweighed any unfair prejudice. We again affirm the trial court's ruling. Relevant testimony is inadmissible only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

182 So. 3d 18, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16609, 2015 WL 6738849

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 2015 | Docket: 3009679

Published

...The Motion in Limine and the Evidence at Trial Carpenter moved before trial to exclude all evidence relating to the October 2009 golf cart incident on the grounds that its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2015). Carpenter argued that irrelevant, but highly prejudicial facts—such as the intoxication, profanity, and struggle with law enforcement personnel—were too interwoven with any facts relating to the golf ca...

...W. Ehrhardt, [Florida Evidence § 403.1 (2007)] at 183. The question under the statute is not prejudice but instead, unfair prejudice: whether the “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403, Fla....

Johnson v. State

534 So. 2d 1212, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2604, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5269, 1988 WL 125636

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 1988 | Docket: 64639065

Published

of the victim in his last moments of life. See § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1987); Young v. State, 234 So.2d 341

Kirkland-Williams v. State

230 So. 3d 580

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 3, 2017 | Docket: 6185392

Published

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403 (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative

Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Ballester

259 So. 3d 977

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 2018 | Docket: 8342191

Published

available third-party benefits is inadmissible.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat.

John William Campbell v. State of Florida & SC18-260 John William Campbell v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

271 So. 3d 914

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 2018 | Docket: 8342339

Published

admissible, except as provided by law." However, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2018), states: "Relevant

DARNELL RAZZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 2017 | Docket: 6232652

Published

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2016). The State presented evidence

Smith v. Geico Casualty Co.

127 So. 3d 808, 2013 WL 6212032, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18895

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 27, 2013 | Docket: 60236860

Published

abused its discretion in rejecting Mr. Smith’s section 90.403, Florida Statutes, argument that the videos’

State of Florida v. Logan Ryan Riggleman

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2024 | Docket: 69404294

Published

allegations under section 90.404 before conducting a section 90.403 balancing test. By failing to conduct a relevancy

Eric Lawrence v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2024 | Docket: 69404299

Published

of unfair prejudice.” White, 971 So. 2d at 972; § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2021); Dean, 690 So. 2d at 723. This

People's Trust Insurance Co. v. Roddy

134 So. 3d 1071, 2013 WL 6081811, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18417

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2013 | Docket: 60239024

Published

Department witness as being unduly prejudicial under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2012). The evidence was

CLEEF THEUS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2022 | Docket: 65654685

Published

rulings under an abuse of discretion standard); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2019)

Mark D. Sievers v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2022 | Docket: 65761625

Published

cumulative and therefore properly excluded. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2019) (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible

McKee v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 2024 | Docket: 69369593

Published

been excluded as unfairly prejudicial under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, because the testimony allowed

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2021 | Docket: 59936582

Published

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2019). Similar fact evidence

Juan De Los Rios v. State of Florida

193 So. 3d 111, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7959, 2016 WL 3002176

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 25, 2016 | Docket: 3071394

Published

probative value.” 920 So.2d at 1208-09 (citing § 90.403,Fla. Stat.).. We hold that the trial court

Vernon v. State

618 So. 2d 369, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5664, 1993 WL 169167

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 1993 | Docket: 64696275

Published

eminently correct in excluding the letters under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991). Next, appellant contests

Jason D. Allen v. State of Florida

192 So. 3d 554, 2016 WL 2894100, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7637

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2016 | Docket: 3071416

Published

The rule of evidence applicable here is section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2013), which provides, in

JOSEPH PIERRE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

246 So. 3d 545

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 16, 2018 | Docket: 6716312

Published

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

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 1, 2024 | Docket: 68490743

Published

and purpose to be relevant, and (2) under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the danger of unfair prejudice

State v. Knowles

265 So. 3d 733

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2019 | Docket: 64706659

Published

needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403. 934 So.2d at 1259. As demonstrated by its order

State v. Knowles

265 So. 3d 733

HEALTHCARE UNDERWRITERS GROUP, INC., AMARNATH VEDERE, M.D. and CARDIOLOGY PARTNERS, P.L. v. DEBORAH SANFORD, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF GERALD L. SANFORD

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2022 | Docket: 63198516

Published

confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2020). Although the determination

JAVARIUS HENDRIX v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 2023 | Docket: 67105037

Published

SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible

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

claims cost the company $72,-000,000 per year. § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1993). *1207Winn Dixie, however, failed

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 2025 | Docket: 70453012

Published

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2024). Comments that insurers handled

McCullum v. State

117 So. 3d 1162, 2013 WL 2395079, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8764

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 2013 | Docket: 60232564

Published

needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2011); McLean v. State, 934 So.2d

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 19, 2024 | Docket: 68867368

Published

3 unfair prejudice to the defendant under section 90.403. McLean, 934 So. 2d at 1261–62. Simmons

166 So. 3d 195

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2015 | Docket: 2663948

Published

...2001-221, § 1, Laws of Fla., 3 Even when relevant to prove a material fact, moreover, evidence is inadmissible if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See LaMarca v. State, 785 So. 2d 1209, 1212–13 (Fla. 2001) (citing section 90.403, Florida Statutes). 7 which “broadly provides[4] that evidence of [a] defendant’s commission of other acts of child molestation is admissible regardless of whether the charged and collat...

...wrongs, or acts of child molestation is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. 5 Evidence of other acts of child molestation in such cases “‘remains subject to weighing under section 90.403,’ which requires the court to assess ‘whether the probative value of evidence of previous molestations is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’” Peralta-Morales v. State, 143 So. 3d 483, 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (emphasis omitted) (quoting McLean v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248, 1259 (Fla. 2006)). Thus, even in child molestation cases, the application of section 90.403 “ensures that section 90.404(2)(b) does not open the door to introduction of any and all propensity evidence.” McLean, 934 So....

Javers v. State

712 So. 2d 443, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6583, 1998 WL 299376

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1998 | Docket: 64781330

Published

discretion by limiting the cross-examination. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1995). The defendants’ remaining

Zavion Alahad v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2023 | Docket: 67461436

Published

of evidence under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2022). We review section 90.403 rulings for abuse

Young v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2025 | Docket: 70739432

Published

to the admission of evidence that fails the section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2022), balancing test. See

Published

Green v. State

12 So. 3d 325, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9625, 2009 WL 2031045

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2009 | Docket: 60233807

Published

physician testimony under Florida Statutes section 90.403 is legally sufficient and not conclusively

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2024 | Docket: 68934023

Published

discretion in admitting it. Id. at 344 (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2007)). That is not what happened

Christian Cruz v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 2021 | Docket: 60030997

Published

argues that admitting this evidence violated section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2019) (“Relevant evidence

Richard Allen Johnson v. Michael D. Crews, etc.

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 2014 | Docket: 400986

Published

Raul Eduardo Banegas-Membran v. State of Florida

182 So. 3d 865, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 235, 2016 WL 72547

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 2018 | Docket: 6259326

Published

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. An admission of a party opponent

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 29, 2024 | Docket: 68295180

Published

white— and in any event unfairly prejudicial. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible

Barnes v. State

80 So. 3d 1117, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3254, 2012 WL 633897

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 29, 2012 | Docket: 2415056

Published

...r bad acts is admissible only when relevant to prove a material fact at issue. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). Moreover, even relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

Richard Andrew Barry, III v. State of Florida

264 So. 3d 1176

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2019 | Docket: 14573443

Published

such as to constitute an abuse of discretion. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017); Wright, 19 So. 3d at 292 (holding

Stinfil v. State

668 So. 2d 671, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1623, 1996 WL 81779

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 1996 | Docket: 64762631

Published

such testimony is precluded on the basis of section 90.403. Any probative value such an opinion may possess

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2022 | Docket: 63008455

Published

the county court did not explicitly reference section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2021), which provides that

Vasser v. State

807 So. 2d 760, 2002 WL 226369

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2002 | Docket: 2580978

Published

...Out of the presence of the jury, the trial judge examined each of the photographs and considered the arguments of counsel regarding their admissibility. The court concluded that the probative value of the photographs outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. See § 90.403, Fla....

Perez v. State

557 So. 2d 121, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 779, 1990 WL 11779

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 1990 | Docket: 64648421

Published

discretion to limit the cross-examination under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987). cf. Duncomb v. State

Michael P. Opsincs v. State of Florida

185 So. 3d 654, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1901, 2016 WL 514235

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 2016 | Docket: 3035026

Published

cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2013). “The unfair prejudice that section 90.403 attempts to eliminate

Jonathan D. Walker v. State of Florida

180 So. 3d 1154, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18415, 2015 WL 8294774

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 2015 | Docket: 3019344

Published

...He also argues the evidence was improper propensity evidence and any probative value was far outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The State responds that the trial court did not err in admitting the defendant’s statements under the “party opponent” exception. It argues the section 90.403 balancing test weighed in its favor and any error was harmless....

BOBBY SCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2021 | Docket: 61601905

Published

prejudice[.]” Wright, 19 So. 3d. at 291 (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2000)). Appellant’s fingerprint was

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 2019 | Docket: 68539974

Published

irrelevant. Counsel could have objected based upon section 90.403, Florida Statutes, arguing that the probative

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2021 | Docket: 61637658

Published

prejudicial to Abdallah or misleading to the jury. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2016); McDuffie, 970 So. 2d at 327

Sutherland v. State

944 So. 2d 1199, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21235, 2006 WL 3734108

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2006 | Docket: 64848328

Published

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403. [[Image here]] In assessing whether the probative

52 So. 3d 31, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19098, 2010 WL 5093140

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 2010 | Docket: 2407295

Published

...hly prejudicial arose out of the court's misapplication of the doctrine of substantial similarity. See Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Dunn, 977 So.2d 594, 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The plaintiff responds the trial court engaged in a classic section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008) [5] , analysis, and ultimately excluded the demonstrative aids due to the "overwhelming possibility of misleading the jury." Thus, the plaintiff argues the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion....

...ut yet permitting, for the most part, Mitsubishi's experts to verbally describe the content of these audio visual devices), cited "the overwhelming possibility of misleading the jury." All relevant evidence must successfully pass through the gate of section 90.403, Florida Statutes, before being presented to the jury. Indeed, section 90.403 renders otherwise relevant evidence inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or the possibility that the jury may be misled....

...uction or replica of the object involved that when viewed by the jury it causes them to see substantially the same object as the original. Harris v. State, 843 So.2d 856, 863 (Fla.2003) (quoting Alston v. Shiver, 105 So.2d 785, 791 (Fla. 1958)). [5] 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 evidenc...

Burton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 2017 | Docket: 6240847

Published

that all relevant evidence is admissible, section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of relevant evidence

Ellis v. Ham

462 So. 2d 28, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2595, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16694

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 1984 | Docket: 64609232

Published

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 2020 | Docket: 17415844

Published

by reading the statute in conjunction with section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), which requires that

William J. Cormier III v. State of Florida

253 So. 3d 75

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2018 | Docket: 7587952

Published

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2012). “Photographs are admissible

JOSE REYNA v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 2020 | Docket: 17479791

Published

by reading the statute in conjunction with section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), which requires that

Cotton v. State

176 So. 3d 310, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12718, 2015 WL 5023063

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 2015 | Docket: 2687686

Published

...character, such evidence may be admissible if the trial court ensures that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. §§ 90.403, 90.404(2)(a), Fla....

...in McLean v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2006), collateral offense evidence admitted pursuant to section 90.404(2)(b) must still be relevant to a material issue as required by section 90.402, and is also subject to the balancing test provided in section 90.403: Accordingly, the similarity of the prior act and the charged offense remains part of a court's analysis in determining whether to admit the evidence in two ways....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403. Id....

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2024 | Docket: 68366463

Published

presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id. (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat.). To decide this issue, a court considers:

Williams v. State

272 So. 3d 482

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 2019 | Docket: 64714693

Published

evidence is admissible, except as provided by law"); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing: "Relevant evidence

Williams v. State

272 So. 3d 482

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 2019 | Docket: 64714694

Published

evidence is admissible, except as provided by law"); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing: "Relevant evidence

Dontae Morris v. State of Florida

219 So. 3d 33, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 502, 2017 WL 1506853, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 929

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 2017 | Docket: 5813562

Published

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. An admission of a party opponent is

KIRK GAGE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 2023 | Docket: 67270676

Published

substantially outweighed its probative value under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2020). The main charge

Watts v. State

953 So. 2d 776, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6118, 2007 WL 1202244

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2007 | Docket: 64850113

Published

State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904, 907 (Fla.1990)); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2006). Here, whether the victim possessed

Gladston Lingo v. the State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2025 | Docket: 69929337

Published

that all relevant evidence is admissible, section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of relevant evidence

Donald James Smith v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 2021 | Docket: 59844635

Published

admitting these photographs would violate section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2017) (“Relevant evidence

CID TORREZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 2020 | Docket: 17089292

Published

expert testimony. B. Admissibility under § 90.403 Notwithstanding all of the above, the defense

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 2025 | Docket: 69899468

Published

abuse of that discretion.” (citation omitted)); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2019) (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible

Sysyn v. State

756 So. 2d 1058, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4238, 2000 WL 368893

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2000 | Docket: 64797038

Published

be admissible under analogous facts. Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), even relevant evidence

Philip Jude Moran v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 2024 | Docket: 68422841

Published

relevant. See 6 § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible

LENSKY JEANBART v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 2020 | Docket: 17033714

Published

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2019). “[I]n order for evidence

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.