Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.405 (2025)

Methods of proving character.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

90.405 Methods of proving character.—

(1) REPUTATION.—When evidence of the character of a person or of a trait of that person’s character is admissible, proof may be made by testimony about that person’s reputation.

(2) SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT.—When character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 7, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379; s. 474, ch. 95-147.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2021 · leading case: Rigterink v. State, 66 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rigterink v. State, 66 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 22× “3d DCA 1991) (holding that section 90.405, Florida Statutes, "specifically limits the introduction of character evidence to reputation.”

Hendricks v. State, 34 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · cites it 8× “roviding that when character evidence is admissible, “proof may be made by testimony as to reputation,” that inquiry into relevant specific instances of conduct is allowable on cross-examination, and that proof of character may be made evidence of specific instances of conduct…”

Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 6× “Next, Pantoja argues that the victim’s prior accusation should have been admitted under section 90.405(2), Florida Statutes (2002).”

Samuel Pitts v. State of Florida, 263 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). · cites it 7× “Section 90.405, Florida Statutes, dictates the methods of proving character at trial.”

Thomas Rigterink v. State of Florida, 193 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 3× “This Court noted that the testimony was not framed or presented in terms of Mullins’s reputation in the drug trade community and held that Farmer’s testimony was based on mere personal opinion, fleeting encounters, or rumor, and was insufficient to satisfy the admissibility…”

Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 2× “As a predicate to the introduction of such reputation evidence, however, section 90.405, Florida Statutes (1999), requires the witness to be aware of the person's general reputation in the community and that the community must be sufficiently broad to provide adequate knowledge…”

Rhodes v. State, 547 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1989). · cites it 3× “Moreover, the circumstances here do not implicate section 90.405.(2) since the attempted cross-examination was not proper impeachment of anything presented on direct.”

Roebuck v. State, 953 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). · cites it 5× “Section 90.405(2), Florida Statutes (1985) allows proof of specific incidents of conduct where that evidence is offered to prove a particular trait of character.”

State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988). · cites it 2× “In its opinion, the district court held that Pettis could not use evidence of the officer's prior reprimands to impeach his character for truthfulness because the officer's character trait was not an essential element of the charge or defense.”

Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). · cites it 3× “In this case, that trait of character was that the witness may be inclined to lie about sexual incidents and charge people with those acts without justification.”

Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). · cites it 4× “Under the circumstances, appellant was properly allowed to introduce evidence of Newton's reputation for violence under Section 90.405(1), Florida Statutes (1989), to establish that Newton was the aggressor.”

State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 90.405, Fla. Stat.; see, e.g., Smith, 410 So.”

Show all 53 citing cases →

— 90.405(1) — 14 cases

Rigterink v. State, 66 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 2011). “3d DCA 1991) (holding that section 90.405, Florida Statutes, "specifically limits the introduction of character evidence to reputation.”

Thomas Rigterink v. State of Florida, 193 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016). “This Court noted that the testimony was not framed or presented in terms of Mullins’s reputation in the drug trade community and held that Farmer’s testimony was based on mere personal opinion, fleeting encounters, or rumor, and was insufficient to satisfy the admissibility…”

Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “Under the circumstances, appellant was properly allowed to introduce evidence of Newton's reputation for violence under Section 90.405(1), Florida Statutes (1989), to establish that Newton was the aggressor.”

Hendricks v. State, 34 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “roviding that when character evidence is admissible, “proof may be made by testimony as to reputation,” that inquiry into relevant specific instances of conduct is allowable on cross-examination, and that proof of character may be made evidence of specific instances of conduct…”

Samuel Pitts v. State of Florida, 263 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “Section 90.405, Florida Statutes, dictates the methods of proving character at trial.”

— 90.405(2) — 20 cases

Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011). “Next, Pantoja argues that the victim’s prior accusation should have been admitted under section 90.405(2), Florida Statutes (2002).”

Roebuck v. State, 953 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “Section 90.405(2), Florida Statutes (1985) allows proof of specific incidents of conduct where that evidence is offered to prove a particular trait of character.”

State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988). “In its opinion, the district court held that Pettis could not use evidence of the officer's prior reprimands to impeach his character for truthfulness because the officer's character trait was not an essential element of the charge or defense.”

Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). “In this case, that trait of character was that the witness may be inclined to lie about sexual incidents and charge people with those acts without justification.”

Rhodes v. State, 547 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1989). “Moreover, the circumstances here do not implicate section 90.405.(2) since the attempted cross-examination was not proper impeachment of anything presented on direct.”

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.