90.404
Character evidence; when admissible.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.—
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.—Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
(b) Character of victim.—
1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.
(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.—
(a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, 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.
(b)1. In a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving child molestation, evidence of the defendant’s commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.
2. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “child molestation” means conduct proscribed by s. 787.025(2)(c), s. 787.06(3)(g), former s. 787.06(3)(h), s. 794.011, excluding s. 794.011(10), s. 794.05, former s. 796.03, former s. 796.035, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), s. 847.0145, or s. 985.701(1) when committed against a person 16 years of age or younger.
(c)1. In a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts involving a sexual offense is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.
2. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “sexual offense” means conduct proscribed by s. 787.025(2)(c), s. 787.06(3)(b), (d), (f), or (g), former s. 787.06(3)(h), s. 794.011, excluding s. 794.011(10), s. 794.05, former s. 796.03, former s. 796.035, s. 825.1025(2)(b), s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), s. 847.0145, or s. 985.701(1).
(d)1. When the state in a criminal action intends to offer evidence of other criminal offenses under paragraph (a), paragraph (b), or paragraph (c), no fewer than 10 days before trial, the state shall furnish to the defendant or to the defendant’s counsel a written statement of the acts or offenses it intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information. No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal.
2. When the evidence is admitted, the court shall, if requested, charge the jury on the limited purpose for which the evidence is received and is to be considered. After the close of the evidence, the jury shall be instructed on the limited purpose for which the evidence was received and that the defendant cannot be convicted for a charge not included in the indictment or information.
(3) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s. 90.610.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 2, ch. 90-40; s. 26, ch. 93-156; s. 473, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 2001-221; s. 9, ch. 2008-172; s. 2, ch. 2011-220; s. 14, ch. 2012-97; s. 15, ch. 2014-160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 887
cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: McLean v. State
McLean v. State (2006)
“[4] This rule is codified at section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), which provides: Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent,…”
Robertson v. State (2002)
“However, section 90.404(1), provides: CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.”
Victorino v. State (2009)
“Similar fact evidence is governed by the requirements and limitations of section 90.404, and dissimilar fact evidence is governed by the general rule of *99 relevancy set forth in section 90.”
Durousseau v. State (2010)
“In response, Durousseau filed a motion in limine asking that the trial court exclude evidence of the collateral murders.”
Dorsett v. State (2006)
“402, rather than as "other criminal offenses" pursuant to section 90.404, the ten-day notice requirement did not apply.”
Kelly Lamont Whisby v. State of Florida (2018)
“” § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The State is required to give notice to defense counsel of its intention to admit such evidence.”
Smith v. State (2004)
“In his third claim, Coolen contends that the knife threat to Jamie Caughman constituted "collateral crimes" evidence that was being introduced to show his propensity to confront people with a knife.”
Griffin v. State (1994)
“The heading of section 90.404(2) is "OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.”
Quentin Marcus Truehill v. State of Florida (2017)
“(quoting § 90.404, Fla. - 22 - Stat.). Dissimilar fact evidence is governed by section 90.”
Conde v. State (2003)
“" § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat (2002). Such evidence is called Williams rule evidence in reference to this Court's decision in Williams v.”
Thomas v. State (1992)
“The substance of the collateral crime testimony being offered by the state pursuant to section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1989), was made known to the trial judge through the deposition of the collateral crime witness.”
Donton v. State (2009)
“See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005); Williams v.”
— 90.404(1) — 48 cases
Robertson v. State (2002)
“However, section 90.404(1), provides: CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.”
Flanagan v. State (1993)
Hendricks v. State (2010)
— 90.404(1)(a) — 25 cases
Robertson v. State (2002)
“However, section 90.404(1), provides: CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.”
Erickson v. State (1990)
Squires v. State (1984)
Flanagan v. State (1991)
Audano v. State (1994)
— 90.404(1)(b) — 17 cases
Johnson v. State (2001)
Love v. State (2008)
Grace v. State (2002)
Berrios v. State (2001)
State v. Storer (2006)
— 90.404(1)(b)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Storer (2006)
State v. Smith (1990)
McElveen v. State (1982)
Adkins v. State (1984)
— 90.404(1)(b)(2) — 1 case
Peterka v. State (2004)
— 90.404(1)(c) — 4 cases
Robertson v. State (2002)
“However, section 90.404(1), provides: CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.”
Welch v. State (2006)
— 90.404(2) — 240 cases
Victorino v. State (2009)
“Similar fact evidence is governed by the requirements and limitations of section 90.404, and dissimilar fact evidence is governed by the general rule of *99 relevancy set forth in section 90.”
Durousseau v. State (2010)
“In response, Durousseau filed a motion in limine asking that the trial court exclude evidence of the collateral murders.”
McGirth v. State (2010)
McDuffie v. State (2007)
— 90.404(2)(A) — 1 case
Link v. Tucker (2012)
— 90.404(2)(a) — 458 cases
Robertson v. State (2002)
“However, section 90.404(1), provides: CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.”
Durousseau v. State (2010)
“In response, Durousseau filed a motion in limine asking that the trial court exclude evidence of the collateral murders.”
Victorino v. State (2009)
“Similar fact evidence is governed by the requirements and limitations of section 90.404, and dissimilar fact evidence is governed by the general rule of *99 relevancy set forth in section 90.”
Dorsett v. State (2006)
“402, rather than as "other criminal offenses" pursuant to section 90.404, the ten-day notice requirement did not apply.”
Thomas v. State (1992)
“The substance of the collateral crime testimony being offered by the state pursuant to section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1989), was made known to the trial judge through the deposition of the collateral crime witness.”
— 90.404(2)(b) — 128 cases
McLean v. State (2006)
“[4] This rule is codified at section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), which provides: Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent,…”
McLean v. State (2003)
Robertson v. State (2002)
“However, section 90.404(1), provides: CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.”
Donton v. State (2009)
“See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005); Williams v.”
Rutledge v. State (2009)
— 90.404(2)(b)(1) — 28 cases
Conde v. State (2003)
“" § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat (2002). Such evidence is called Williams rule evidence in reference to this Court's decision in Williams v.”
Griffin v. State (1994)
“The heading of section 90.404(2) is "OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.”
Robertson v. State (2002)
“However, section 90.404(1), provides: CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.”
Lucas v. State (1990)
State v. Richman (2003)
— 90.404(2)(b)(2) — 10 cases
Robertson v. State (2002)
“However, section 90.404(1), provides: CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.”
Lawrence v. State (1993)
Travers v. State (1991)
State v. Richardson (1993)
Foreman v. State (2007)
— 90.404(2)(b)(l) — 11 cases
Koonce v. United States (2010)
Corson v. State (2009)
Kelly v. State (1989)
Seavey v. State (2009)
Sabine v. State (2011)
— 90.404(2)(c) — 27 cases
Kelly Lamont Whisby v. State of Florida (2018)
“” § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The State is required to give notice to defense counsel of its intention to admit such evidence.”
Dorsett v. State (2006)
“402, rather than as "other criminal offenses" pursuant to section 90.404, the ten-day notice requirement did not apply.”
Durousseau v. State (2010)
“In response, Durousseau filed a motion in limine asking that the trial court exclude evidence of the collateral murders.”
McCray v. State (2011)
— 90.404(2)(c)(1) — 7 cases
Smith v. State (2004)
“In his third claim, Coolen contends that the knife threat to Jamie Caughman constituted "collateral crimes" evidence that was being introduced to show his propensity to confront people with a knife.”
State v. Storer (2006)
Victorino v. State (2009)
“Similar fact evidence is governed by the requirements and limitations of section 90.404, and dissimilar fact evidence is governed by the general rule of *99 relevancy set forth in section 90.”
Wightman v. State (2008)
Sabine v. State (2011)
— 90.404(2)(c)(2) — 2 cases
McLean v. State (2006)
“[4] This rule is codified at section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), which provides: Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent,…”
— 90.404(2)(c)(l) — 2 cases
Victorino v. State (2009)
“Similar fact evidence is governed by the requirements and limitations of section 90.404, and dissimilar fact evidence is governed by the general rule of *99 relevancy set forth in section 90.”
Cooper v. State (2009)
— 90.404(2)(d) — 15 cases
Kelly Lamont Whisby v. State of Florida (2018)
“” § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The State is required to give notice to defense counsel of its intention to admit such evidence.”
Fey v. State (2013)
Hills v. State (2012)
— 90.404(2)(d)(1) — 5 cases
Kirkland-Williams v. State (2017)
Foster v. State (2017)
Foster v. State (2017)
Keyne v. State (2014)
— 90.404(2)(d)(2) — 1 case
— 90.404(2)(d)(l) — 1 case
Kyne v. State (2014)
— 90.404(28)(c) — 1 case
Diaz v. State (1993)
— 90.404(b) — 2 cases
Conde v. State (2003)
“" § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat (2002). Such evidence is called Williams rule evidence in reference to this Court's decision in Williams v.”
— 90.404(b)(2) — 2 cases
Whittey v. State (2004)
— 90.404(d) — 2 cases
Mendez v. State (2019)
— 90.404(l)(a) — 6 cases
Hendricks v. State (2010)
Knight v. State (2011)
Squires v. Dugger (1992)
A.K. v. State (2005)
Shermer v. State (2009)
— 90.404(l)(b) — 10 cases
Antoine v. State (2014)
Loureiro v. State (2013)
Munoz v. State (2010)
Simon v. State (2010)
Wade v. State (1992)
— 90.404(l)(b)(2) — 1 case
Dean v. State (2003)
— 90.404(l)(c) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.