Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 90.410
Total Results: 60
722 So. 2d 177, 1998 WL 207909
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1998 | Docket: 1241889
Cited 88 times | Published
...As to the merits of Donaldson's claim, he raises several arguments relating to certain nonstatutory mitigating evidence. First, he contends the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of the State's plea offer for life imprisonment. [13] We disagree. Under section 90.410 of Florida's Evidence Code, offers to plead guilty are not admissible in either criminal or civil cases. § 90.410, Fla....
46 So. 3d 535, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 409, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1051, 2010 WL 2605961
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 2010 | Docket: 2399554
Cited 56 times | Published
...at the February 26, 2003, status hearing; (b) statements made at the March 5, 2003, plea colloquy; and (c) his letter to the trial judge confessing guilt. Appellant asserts that trial counsel should have moved to have these statements excluded under section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172, which prohibit the use of statements made during the course of plea negotiations....
...irst asserts that counsel was deficient for failing to object to the admission of both the confession letter and his in-court admissions made during pretrial proceedings on the grounds that they were made in connection with an offer to plead guilty. Section 90.410, Florida Statutes, provides: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding....
659 So. 2d 1064, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 447, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 1417, 1995 WL 511416
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 31, 1995 | Docket: 2484834
Cited 39 times | Published
...Accord Raiford, 695 F.2d at 521 (Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f), which provides that federal court cannot enter judgment on guilty plea unless it determines that factual basis for plea exists, provides sufficient safeguard to give collateral estoppel effect to prior judgment based on guilty plea). The fact section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1991), precludes the admission of a nolo plea in any civil or criminal proceeding does not mandate that we ignore the express language of the civil remedies estoppel statute....
...There must be a hopeless inconsistency between two statutes before rules of construction are applied to defeat the plain language of one of the statutes in favor of the other. State v. Parsons, 569 So.2d 437 (Fla. 1990). These statutes are not hopelessly inconsistent. Section 90.410 speaks only to the admission into evidence of the plea itself. It does not address the collateral estoppel effect of a final judgment resulting from the plea. Moreover, even if the two statutes were in irreconcilable conflict, section 90.410 is a general provision of the Florida Evidence Code that was enacted in 1976; [8] whereas, section 772.14 is a later enactment [9] that specifically addresses the issue at hand....
419 So. 2d 1058
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 1982 | Docket: 1555149
Cited 38 times | Published
...Appellant argues that the statement should have been completely excluded and that the error prejudiced his *1062 defense by preventing him from testifying in his own behalf. Appellant argues that his statement was made in connection with plea negotiations and was therefore inadmissible for any purpose under section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1979) [1] and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h)....
443 So. 2d 962
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 1983 | Docket: 2447975
Cited 34 times | Published
...Since they were intended to be communicated to a third person, the statements were not confidential and were therefore not privileged communications. See § 90.505, Fla. Stat. (1981). As for his second argument, we agree that any statement made in connection with a plea or an offer to plead is inadmissible. § 90.410, Fla....
854 So. 2d 182, 2003 WL 21554960
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2003 | Docket: 402787
Cited 31 times | Published
...ent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1997). Owen first argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the State violated section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172 by introducing into evidence statements that he made during plea negotiations....
...trial court on a 3.800 motion and will not be addressed here. Additionally, the issue of Owen's competency to be executed is not ripe for review at this time. See Fotopoulos v. State, 838 So.2d 1122 (Fla.2002); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.811(c). [8] Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2001), reads: "Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding....
986 So. 2d 534, 2008 WL 1969141
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2008 | Docket: 2529240
Cited 30 times | Published
...As a result, his June 21, 1984, confession could not have been obtained in violation of such right. Third, Owen asserts that counsel was deficient for not arguing that Owen's confession should be suppressed because it was made during what Owen reasonably believed to be plea negotiations. Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1999), provided that "[e]vidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible, except when such statements are offered in a prosecution under chapter 837." This Court has explained...
694 So. 2d 678, 1997 WL 123352
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 1997 | Docket: 1450002
Cited 27 times | Published
...And you are doing your best to get out of it, aren't you? A. No, sir. Reese argues that these questions should have allowed his counsel to ask about plea offers which had been discussed with the state. We agree with the court that the general rule says that offers to plead are not admissible. See § 90.410, Fla....
563 So. 2d 655, 1990 WL 50408
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 1990 | Docket: 1682893
Cited 27 times | Published
...d not constitute an admission of intentional abuse within the statutory definition, and it cannot be used as competent proof of intentional abuse in this proceeding. Wyche v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 469 So.2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); § 90.410, Fla....
706 So. 2d 1349, 1998 WL 29642
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 1998 | Docket: 1682515
Cited 20 times | Published
...ould have "nothing". As Ladwig himself explained in the colloquy quoted above, even though "the plea offer that we had discussed previously was gone", if Richardson gave the requested statement "we'll see what can be done with it". Rule 3.172(h) and section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1991), prohibit the admission of statements given during plea negotiations....
...whether it could be used against him. But at any rate, it appears he knowingly made this statement of his own volition. And at this time, under the rule, I don't believe it wasand under the testimony presented, it was not a violation of four ten [section 90.410] to admit such a ruleor such a confession or statement....
...n. On this point, the issue is the credibility of the detective. It would simply be wrong to reason that Richardson could not make a voluntary confession outside of the plea negotiation during the period while plea negotiations were ongoing. Neither section 90.410, Florida Statutes, nor rule 3.172(h) should be construed to place a prophylactic around a time period simply because the State and the defendant discuss a plea during that period....
...whether it could be used against him. But at any rate, it appears he knowingly made this statement of his own volition. And at this time, under the rule, I don't believe it wasand under the testimony presented, it was not a violation of four ten [section 90.410] to admit such a ruleor such a confession or statement....
...We find the so-called "warning" insufficient to transform the fundamental character of the meeting from negotiations to something else. For this reason we need not and do not consider Richardson's citation to us of Ladwig's misconduct in other cases. [12] Rule 3.172(h) is simply a judicial restatement of the provisions of section 90.410....
...[19] As it turned out, the district court affirmed the trial court's order regarding items 1 and 4, reversed on items 2 and 3, and quashed the order as to items 5 and 6. Richardson, 621 So.2d at 758. [20] I also point out that Richardson's argument and the trial judge's ruling were based on section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1991), not on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h). However, this is of no import since the trial court found that plea-bargaining negotiations had ceased. Thus, Richardson's statement would be admissible under rule 3.172(h) as well as section 90.410, as noted. Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1991) provides in relevant part: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding....
713 So. 2d 996, 1998 WL 333429
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 1998 | Docket: 1732753
Cited 19 times | Published
...§ 90.610(1)(emphasis added). To resolve the precise issue in this case, we need not reach a decision as to the scope of the term "conviction" pursuant to section 90.610(1). [7] In this case, we need look no further than the express statutory prohibition of section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1995)....
749 F.3d 999, 2014 WL 1509015, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7283
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 18, 2014 | Docket: 280845
Cited 13 times | Published
...But the victims would enjoy an
evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether the
United States violated their rights under the Act. As for any consensus among the
states, the majority of the state statutes the intervenors cite adopted Rule 410
verbatim. Compare, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 90.410 (“Evidence of a plea of guilty, later
withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo
contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or
criminal proceeding.”), with Fed....
458 So. 2d 226
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 1984 | Docket: 1452330
Cited 11 times | Published
...The judge sentenced Groover to death for the Padgett and Dalton murders and to life for the Sheppard murder. In challenging the convictions, Groover raises several issues, only one of which merits detailed discussion. Citing Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h) [1] and section 90.410, Florida Statutes *228 (1981), [2] Groover claims the sworn statement made May 17 which was admitted into evidence in the state's case in chief was a statement made in connection with a negotiated plea, and therefore the statement was inadmissible....
...vided in this Rule, evidence of an offer or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, later withdrawn, or of statements made in connection therewith, is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer. [2] Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1981), provides: Offer to plead guilty; nolo contendere; withdrawn pleas of guilty....
475 So. 2d 1021, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2258
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1985 | Docket: 1301873
Cited 11 times | Published
...empt to provide substantial assistance under section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1983), in return for a reduced sentence. Defendant argues that these statements were actually made in connection with his guilty plea and were, therefore, pursuant to section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1983), inadmissible even for impeachment purposes....
437 So. 2d 692
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 1983 | Docket: 1675073
Cited 8 times | Published
...on dates other than the date of the crime, Smith's arrest or Smith's deposition or courtroom testimony," as well as "any offers or negotiations made to [him] prior to or during his trial." In seeking exclusion of the latter material, the state's motion cited Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...The leniency he referred to was a lighter sentence. No details of the plea negotiations, however, were permitted. In restricting the defense from inquiring into matters which were the subject of plea negotiations, the lower court may have been influenced by the state's reliance upon section 90.410, excluding statements relating to plea bargaining into evidence. From a superficial reading of the statute, one might conclude that evidence of any offers made in connection with plea negotiations is inadmissible at any proceeding. If this were the legislature's purpose in enacting section 90.410, it would constitute a serious infringement upon a defendant's sixth amendment right to examine his accusers. We are not convinced, however, that the statute was meant to be read so expansively. We consider, rather, that section 90.410 was intended to preclude evidence of thwarted plea negotiations only if such evidence is introduced at a later proceeding against the person who withdrew the plea or refused to accept the offer, provided he is a party to the proceeding. Moreover, we are persuaded that section 90.410 was never intended to bar evidence of plea negotiations for the purpose of impeaching a witness who appears at trial to offer testimony against an accused....
...Our conclusion is supported by the comments of the Law Revision Council Note to the 1976 statute, which explain that exclusion of such evidence "has as its purpose the promotion of disposition of criminal cases by compromise." Law Revision Council Note-1976, 6B Fla. Stat. Ann., § 90.410 at 440 (1979)....
...Both cases involved defendants who had withdrawn pleas of guilty and then gone on to trial on the same charges to which they had formerly pled. Both cases disallowed evidence of the withdrawn pleas to be admitted against them as evidence of their guilt. The 1978 amendment to section 90.410 and the Council's accompanying commentary finally foreclose any rational contention that the statute was designed to bar at any trial all evidence of statements made in *696 connection with pleas or offers....
...under chapter 837." The 1978 amendment deleted the words "for impeachment." Consequently, such evidence is now admissible in a later prosecution only for perjury or false statement. The Council's commentary to the amendment states that it "conforms Section 90.410 to Fed.Rule Evid. 410 and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(h),... ." 6B Fla. Stat. Ann. at 441. Significantly, Rule 3.172(h) excludes evidence of plea negotiations "against the person who made the plea or offer." [2] (emphasis supplied) Thus, if section 90.410 is to be interpreted consistently with the purpose stated in the Council's notes and the provisions of Rule 3.172(h), we consider it necessary to construe the amended statute in pari materia with both the Florida and federal rules. The Council's reference to Federal Evidence Rule 410 also convinces us that section 90.410 despite its different wording was intended to be an adaptation of Rule 410....
...C. Wright & K. Graham, supra, at 417. We therefore conclude, after considering the stated purpose for prohibiting the introduction into evidence of statements made during plea negotiations, and the various comments, that the legislature in enacting section 90.410 did not intend to exclude such statements from being used to impeach persons other than the defendant on trial....
...State, 422 So.2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), we affirmed the trial court in a 2 to 1 decision, the majority now adopts the Gilley dissent. Will Gilley understand and appreciate this action? Has justice prevailed? I think not. This case should be affirmed. NOTES [1] Section 90.410 provides: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding....
498 So. 2d 1297, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2400
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 1986 | Docket: 1699836
Cited 7 times | Published
...Here, intent was clearly at issue, as Traylor contended that the crime was one of passion contrary to the State's contention of premeditation. We find, as did the trial court, that this evidence was relevant to the proof of that issue. Finally, Traylor argues, pursuant to Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1983), that the inculpatory letters he wrote to his trial judges should have been held inadmissible as offers to plead guilty....
696 So. 2d 1225, 1997 WL 287577
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 1997 | Docket: 1696245
Cited 7 times | Published
...In the instant case, Raydo had neither pleaded guilty nor been found guilty by a jury of the offenses which formed the basis of the State's proposed impeachment evidence. He had entered pleas of nolo contendere to the offenses charged in the unrelated case and was awaiting disposition on those pleas. Section 90.410, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that "[e]vidence of a ......
814 So. 2d 488, 2002 WL 529897
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 2002 | Docket: 1368824
Cited 7 times | Published
...Jr., her fifth child. C.W. 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...
...s an affirmative 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....
704 So. 2d 511, 1997 WL 709652
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 1997 | Docket: 1354387
Cited 6 times | Published
...The trial court denied Wainwright's motion to suppress these statements, and Wainwright claims this was error. We disagree. This issue is addressed by Florida Statutes and this Court's rules of procedure, both of which provide that statements made "in connection with" a plea are inadmissible. Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1993), states: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding. Evidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible, except when such statements are offered in a prosecution under chapter 837. § 90.410, Fla....
925 So. 2d 1070, 2006 WL 566107
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2006 | Docket: 1517034
Cited 6 times | Published
...5th DCA 1992) (acts taken by police officer to make physical arrest and officer's preparation of arrest affidavit did not give rise to independent tort claims for battery and libel since acts were no more than ordinary incidents of arrest). We also reject Behm's argument that section 90.410 prohibits consideration of his criminal case as a defense to this lawsuit. This section provides: 90.410....
...ing admitted facts indicating no civil liability of the arresting officers. See, Walker v. Schaeffer, 854 F.2d 138, 142, 143 (6th Cir.1988). The Court of Appeals in Irwin thus held a nolo contendere plea admissible. 956 P.2d at 938. We conclude that section 90.410, like its federal and state counterparts, would not bar consideration of Behm's conviction simply because it was based on a no contest plea. Section 90.410 seems intended to protect the criminal defendant who pleads no contest from future liability....
...It does not appear to us that it was intended to shield a defendant from his own actions in entering a no contest plea in a criminal setting and then repudiating that declaration in a civil setting. See Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen, 659 So.2d 1064, 1068 (Fla. 1995) (section 90.410 speaks only to the admission into evidence of the plea itself; it does not address the collateral estoppel effect of a final judgment resulting from the plea)....
15 So. 3d 629, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7694, 2009 WL 1677545
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2009 | Docket: 1660461
Cited 6 times | Published
...of counsel"). We likewise find no error in the trial court's refusal to keep from the jury appellant's letter to the trial judge. Appellant argues on appeal that the letter was inadmissible because it represented an attempt to negotiate a plea. See § 90.410, Fla....
875 So. 2d 737, 2004 WL 1284155
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 2004 | Docket: 1283913
Cited 6 times | Published
...aim like treatment under an equal protection analysis. See Level 3, 841 So.2d at 454. Rodgers argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of his prior convictions, resulting from his nolo contendere pleas, pursuant to section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2000), which prohibits evidence of nolo contendere pleas to be used in any civil or criminal proceeding....
995 So. 2d 307, 2008 WL 4277295
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 2008 | Docket: 1184105
Cited 5 times | Published
...THE COURT: And we will see what his mind set is at that time.... (Emphasis added). Calabro thereafter filed a motion to exclude the statements relating to his admissions of guilt, alleging that the statements were offers to plead guilty or made in connection with plea negotiations and thus, inadmissible under section 90.410 of the Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h). In responding to Calabro's motion to exclude the statements, the State conceded that the first statement uttered by Calabro, "I will like to avoid the trial and have some kind of plea agreement," is inadmissible under section 90.410, Florida Statutes, and rule 3.172(h) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure....
...aracterizing a statement or discussion as an inadmissible plea negotiation. The trial court entered an order excluding both statements, concluding that the statements made by Calabro "were offers for a plea agreement and are inadmissible pursuant to § 90.410, Fla....
...2003) (describing the standard of review for orders on motions to suppress alleging constitutional violations). In this instance we agree with the State that our review is essentially de novo since the trial court relied exclusively on a transcript from arraignment as the factual predicate for applying section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(i) (formerly rule 3.172(h)). Calabro argues that the Third District erred in concluding that his unsolicited statements admitting guilt during arraignment did not fall within the ambit of evidence excluded by section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(i). He asserts that the Third District's ruling is contrary to an application of the plain language of section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i) as well as numerous decisions from this Court and the other district courts of appeal involving similar circumstances....
...The First District held that the defendant's statement to the prosecutor "Oh, I already told you I was guilty of that, but the grand theft, no, no, no" was made in connection with the defendant's attempts at plea negotiations and was, therefore, inadmissible under the express provisions of section 90.410....
...The First District cited this Court's opinion in Richardson v. State, 706 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 1998), and concluded by explaining that its holding was mandated by Richardson and the express terms of the statute and rule: In so finding, we note the fairly broad scope of the applicable criminal rule and statute, section 90.410. See § 90.410, Fla....
...oceeding. Evidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible, except when such statements are offered in a prosecution under chapter 831." (emphasis added)); Richardson, 706 So.2d at 1355-56 ("Rule 3.172(h) and section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1991), prohibit the admission of statements given during plea negotiations....
...In all these cases the district courts held that section 9.410 and rule 3.172(i) barred admission of the statements. In Russell, the First District found that a defendant's unsolicited letter to the state attorney was an offer to plead and was, therefore, inadmissible pursuant to section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i)....
...The State argued that the letter was an unsolicited and unilateral communication not protected by the statute. Id. The First District disagreed and, after an extensive discussion of this Court's case law and several federal decisions, applied that law and the plain language of section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i) in holding that the letter should not have been admitted in evidence as an admission of Russell's guilt and concluding that "[u]nder a literal reading of the statute, an `offer to plead guilty' is inadmissible." Id. at 608. In McCray, the Second District followed Russell in holding that a similar unsolicited letter from the defendant to the state attorney was an offer to plead guilty and was therefore inadmissible under the plain language of section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i)....
...Debiasio, 789 So.2d at 1062 (emphasis removed). The Fourth District cited Russell and McCray and concluded: We conclude that the letter in this case was an offer to plead guilty and, therefore, falls squarely within the ambit of evidence prohibited by section 90.410. See Russell v. State, 614 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (unsolicited letter to the prosecutor offering to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions held inadmissible under section 90.410)....
...ndant personally to engage in plea negotiations to resolve the criminal charges filed by the State, and in all three cases the district courts held the defendant's statements should be excluded as offers to plead as contemplated by the provisions of section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i). THE STATUTE AND RULE Section 90.410, Florida Statutes, provides: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding....
...awn, or of statements made in connection therewith, is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer." The provisions of the statute and rule are essentially identical. This Court has explained that section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i) were "adopted to promote plea bargaining by allowing a defendant to negotiate without waiving fifth amendment protection." Groover v....
...157, 159 (1931)). Assuming that the plain meaning of the words used can be determined, we are bound to apply that plain meaning to resolve legal disputes that involve application of the statute or rule. Hence, courts are initially bound to apply the terms of section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i) according to the plain meaning of those terms....
...at 1364, 1367-71. Judge Smith's scholarly opinion for the First District in Russell contains an extensive discussion of Robertson and the other federal decisions later relied upon this Court in adopting a framework for analysis of issues arising under section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i), where the plain terms of the statute or rule may not yield a ready answer....
...iations. Russell, 614 So.2d at 610-11. We find Judge Smith's opinion in Russell to contain a thorough and accurate assessment of the federal court's analysis in Robertson, an analysis which this Court has relied upon in resolving issues raised under section 90.410....
...And, as did a unanimous First District in Russell, we find Judge Smith's *317 careful evaluation of Robertson helpful to our resolution of this case. THIS CASE We conclude that whether we consider Calabro's statements under a plain language analysis of section 90.410 or under the Robertson analysis, the outcome is the same and the statements are not admissible....
...Although Calabro's statements were made in open court rather than in a letter, we conclude that his awkward attempts to convey his desire for a disposition of his case by "some kind of plea agreement" are indistinguishable from the similar efforts of the defendants in Russell, McCray, and Debiasio, and all fall within section 90.410's provisions barring the admission of such evidence of an offer to plead guilty. As the State has conceded at all stages of the litigation, including in this Court, Calabro's initial statement to the trial court that he would "like to avoid the trial and have some kind of plea agreement" clearly comes within section 90.410's prohibition of the admission of "[e]vidence of ......
...The question then becomes whether Calabro's statement made almost immediately thereafter that "I know this is unusual but unfortunately, I'm guilty of this" was a statement made in connection with his initial offer of a plea agreement as contemplated by the second sentence of section 90.410....
...nts admitting his guilt. CONCLUSION Hence, we conclude, consistent with the district courts holdings in Russell, McCray and Debiasio, that the trial court did not err in concluding that Calabro's statements fell within the exclusionary provisions of section 90.410 and the parallel criminal rule....
...Calabro, 957 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). In Stevens v. State, 419 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1982), this Court unanimously adopted the federal test used in United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir.1978), for determining whether a statement falls under section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(i) and is, therefore, inadmissible....
...this Court's long-established precedent regarding the statute and rule. I then explain why the Third District's opinion is consistent with this long-established precedent. Finally, I discuss why stare decisis dictates no change to this precedent. A. Section 90.410, Rule 3.172(i), and this Court's Precedent Section 90.410, Florida Statutes, provides: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding....
...fendant to negotiate without waiving fifth amendment protection." Id. In Stevens v. State, 419 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 1982), this Court unanimously adopted the federal test used in Robertson as the sole test for determining whether a statement falls under section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i) and is, therefore, inadmissible....
...[u]nsolicited, unilateral utterances are not statements made in connection with plea negotiations." Id. (citing Blake v. State, 332 So.2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)). Since we decided Stevens in 1982, the key question in this Court's analysis regarding section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i) has been whether the statement was made in connection with plea negotiations....
...State, 443 So.2d 962, 965 (Fla.1983); Anderson v. State, 420 So.2d 574, 576-77 (Fla. 1982). Indeed, this Court most recently applied the Robertson test to determine whether a statement was made in connection with plea negotiations and was, therefore, inadmissible under section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i) in Owen v. State, 986 So.2d 534 (Fla.2008). Thus, as accurately summarized by Professor Ehrhardt, this Court has consistently interpreted section 90.410 as applying in situations where there is actually "bargaining" or "negotiating" between both the state and the defendant. For example, unilateral and unsolicited statements by the defendant are not included within the section 90.410 prohibition....
...ngs utterly without legal justification? The answers to all three of these questions dictate that we continue to adhere to our precedent adopting the two-tier Robertson test as the sole method of determining whether a statement is inadmissible under section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i)....
...Neither the language of the statute nor the language of the rule has changed. Given the answers to these three questions, the doctrine of stare decisis dictates that we continue to adhere to our 1982 decision in Stevens adopting the two-tier Robertson test for determining whether a statement is inadmissible under section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i)....
...t. III. CONCLUSION For over twenty-five years, this Court has consistently applied the two-tier Robertson test as the sole method for determining whether a statement was made in connection with plea negotiations and is, therefore, inadmissible under section 90.410 and rule 3.172(i)....
...ement. For example, would a defendant's admissions to police officers who the defendant actually knew had no authority to negotiate plea agreements now fall within the plain meaning of "statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers"? § 90.410, Fla....
12 So. 3d 298, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7604, 2009 WL 1675630
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2009 | Docket: 1646710
Cited 5 times | Published
...te preserved this issue for appellate review. Second, there is no question as to the inadmissibility of the e-mails, which contained statements from each of the parties regarding proposed sentencing frameworks, counter-proposals, and other concerns. Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2007), provides that "[e]vidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible" outside of perjury/false statement prosecutions....
614 So. 2d 605, 1993 WL 43868
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1993 | Docket: 1509818
Cited 5 times | Published
...elony record, and that it was this concern that caused him to write the letter to the prosecutor. *607 After the defense rested, appellant moved for a mistrial urging that this letter was nothing more than an offer to plead guilty inadmissible under section 90.410, Florida Statutes, and constituted plea negotiations made inadmissible by rule 3.172(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure....
...As will be seen in the following discussion, this distinction may be one of considerable consequence in ruling upon the admissibility of a particular communication. Perhaps more important in the evolution of the rule against admissibility of communications involved in plea negotiations was the enactment of section 90.410, Florida Evidence Code, in 1978: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding....
...rested along with Robertson and his companion). Here, by contrast, Russell's only statement was his offer not to go to trial in return for sentencing concessions. It was plainly inadmissible under the Robertson analysis. Because the Florida Statute, section 90.410, was patterned after rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence effective July 1, 1975, the federal cases construing language *610 similar to that found in the Florida rule are persuasive....
...er and requesting leniency. They delivered these statements to the state attorney's office, and they were admitted against him at trial. In rejecting the contention that these statements were made in connection with a plea or an offer to plead under section 90.410, the supreme *612 court determined, again applying the two-tiered analysis of United States v....
...1st DCA 1983), pet. for rev. denied, 447 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1984), this court rejected the contention that incriminating statements made by Downs to a witness and the witness's mother were inadmissible under rule 3.170(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1981), since no law enforcement officers were present when the statements were made, and there was no withdrawn guilty plea or offer to plead guilty involved....
...In rejecting the contention that the letters should have been held inadmissible as offers to plead guilty, this court correctly pointed out that the letters were only "unsolicited, unilateral statements" which do not fall under the protection of the statute, section 90.410. In Anderson v. State, 420 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1982), a case decided under former rule 3.171(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, prior to the enactment of the Evidence Code section 90.410, and prior to enactment of the present Rule of Criminal Procedure, rule 3.172(h), the court held inadmissible statements made by the defendant in connection with plea discussions in which Anderson discussed the possibility of pleading guilty to a homicide if the state agreed not to seek the death penalty....
...410. [2] See United States v. Brooks, 536 F.2d 1137, 1138 (6th Cir.1976), fn. 1, and cases therein cited. [3] The court held in Clark v. State, 452 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), that the improper admission of evidence of statements in violation of section 90.410, and rule 3.172(h), could not be deemed harmless under the facts of that case....
430 So. 2d 549
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 1983 | Docket: 446017
Cited 5 times | Published
...tatement had been made at a guilty plea negotiation proceeding. We reverse. Evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is generally permitted for impeachment purposes under the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.608, Florida Statutes (1981). However, section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1981) provides that: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding. Evidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible, except when such statements are offered in a prosecution under chapter 837 [the perjury statute]. See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(h). The foregoing version of section 90.410 resulted from the amendment of that statute in 1978....
...Before its amendment, the statute, in pertinent part, provided: Evidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible, except when such statements are offered for impeachment or in a prosecution under chapter 837. (emphasis added) Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1977). The amendment, by omitting the words "for impeachment," showed the clear legislative intent that such inconsistent statements would no longer be permitted for impeachment purposes. Thus, the legislature clearly intended that section 90.410 be an exception to section 90.608....
...See Yetter, The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; 1977 Amendments, 5 Fla.State U.L.Rev. 268 (1977). That there was no specific reference in defendant's cross-examination testimony to the fact that the statement had been made at a prior guilty plea proceeding does not remove the testimony from the proscriptions of section 90.410....
...ions by a failure to specifically identify the occasion for the prior inconsistent statement. The state argues that even if there were error, such error was harmless under section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1981). However, we feel that the purpose of section 90.410 is of such importance that the foregoing violation of that section cannot be deemed harmless....
...In Trujillo the Supreme Court of New Mexico discussed the similar history of rule 410, New Mexico Rules of Evidence; rule 21(g)(6), New Mexico Rules of Criminal Procedure; and rule 11(e)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, all of which correspond to section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1981)....
469 So. 2d 184, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1268
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 1985 | Docket: 1272582
Cited 4 times | Published
...See Fisher v. Wainwright, 584 F.2d 691 (5th Cir.1978) (plea of nolo contendere may not be used in subsequent civil litigation); Chesebrough (plea of nolo contendere may not be used in civil suit as admission of facts charged in complaint). See also § 90.410, Fla....
903 So. 2d 367, 2005 WL 1397418
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 2005 | Docket: 1675379
Cited 4 times | Published
...Cira postconviction relief. Second, they argue that the summary judgment should be reversed because it was based solely on evidence of Mr. Cira's pleas of nolo contendere to the charges and evidence concerning the pleas would have been inadmissible at trial under section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2004)....
...Cira was not adjudicated guilty, he was sanctioned on account of the aggravated battery charges. Thus the circuit court correctly ruled that the appellants could not satisfy the exoneration requirement that was a precondition to the legal malpractice action against Mr. Cira's former defense counsel. B. Section 90.410 and the Evidentiary Issue In their second point, the appellants challenge the evidentiary support for the adverse summary judgment....
...The appellants' argument begins with the proposition that the sole evidentiary basis for the summary judgment was Mr. Cira's pleas of nolo contendere to the aggravated battery charges. The appellants assert that the nolo contendere pleas were inadmissible in evidence in accordance with section 90.410....
...Henderson (In re Forfeiture of 1998 Ford Pickup), 779 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The appellants conclude that the summary judgment must be reversed because it was based solely on the nolo contendere pleas and evidence relating to the pleas would be inadmissible. Section 90.410 provides as follows: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding....
...Cira "opened the door" to its admission by seeking affirmative relief relative to the circumstances surrounding his pleas. In the Public Defender's view, to permit Mr. Cira to deprive the circuit court of evidence concerning his pleas by invoking the bar of section 90.410 would impermissibly transform the statute from a shield to a sword. We need not decide whether section 90.410 makes evidence of Mr....
...Cira on probation because it was based on the nolo contendere pleas. However, the admissibility of judgments of conviction or orders placing a defendant on probation based on a nolo contendere plea is a separate issue from the issue of the admissibility in evidence of the plea itself. Section 90.410 addresses the latter but not the former....
585 So. 2d 443, 1991 WL 167841
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 1991 | Docket: 1293760
Cited 3 times | Published
...He was acquitted of aggravated battery and was found guilty of robbery. At trial, appellant testified on his own behalf. The prosecutor questioned appellant regarding a plea offer he had made prior to trial. We find that the admission of testimony regarding appellant's plea offer constituted reversible error. Section 90.410 aids in promoting both the efficiency and fairness of our system of justice....
...724, 727, 605 P.2d 232, 235 (1980)). Additionally, allowing admission of evidence of prior plea negotiations leaves an "indelible impression of guilt on the jurors' minds." Clark v. State, 452 So.2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We agree that "the purpose of § 90.410 is of such importance that ......
881 So. 2d 673, 2004 WL 1908110
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 27, 2004 | Docket: 1466234
Cited 3 times | Published
...A plea of nolo contendere does not admit the allegations of the charge in a technical sense, but rather says that the defendant does not choose to defend. Vinson v. State, 345 *677 So.2d 711 (Fla.1977). Indeed, a plea of nolo contendere, unlike a guilty plea, is not admissible in a civil proceeding. § 90.410, Fla....
760 So. 2d 988, 2000 WL 731912
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 2000 | Docket: 1324935
Cited 2 times | Published
...(bone cancer) before I am set [sic] to prison? I understand by this plea I am giving up all my right to a trial.... Please contact me as soon as possible. A statement made in connection with a plea or an offer to plead is inadmissible at trial. See § 90.410, Fla....
...In Russell v. State, 614 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the First District held that even an unsolicited and self-initiated communication inviting the state attorney to accept a plea offer could not be used against the offering defendant pursuant to section 90.410 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h)....
789 So. 2d 1061, 2001 WL 649530
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2001 | Docket: 1325947
Cited 2 times | Published
...a confession by Appellant, was dispositive of the case. Although this court is not bound by the state's stipulation, [2] having so stipulated, the state should not be permitted to assert the contrary on appeal. As to the merits of Debiasio's appeal, section 90.410, Florida Statutes, provides: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceedings....
...Evidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible, except when such statements are offered in a prosecution under chapter 817. [3] We conclude that the letter in this case was an offer to plead guilty and, therefore, falls squarely within the ambit of evidence prohibited by section 90.410. See Russell v. State, 614 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(unsolicited letter to the prosecutor offering to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions held inadmissible under section 90.410)....
769 So. 2d 1051, 2000 WL 966039
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 2000 | Docket: 1739116
Cited 2 times | Published
...Further, the appellate court is to review the evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. See Codie v. State, 406 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h) [2] and section 90.410, Florida Evidence Code [3] restrict the admissibility of statements "made in connection with" a plea agreement which is later withdrawn....
...Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of an offer or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, later withdrawn, or of statements made in connection therewith, is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer. [3] Section 90.410, Florida Evidence Code provides: Offer to plead guilty; nolo contendere; withdrawn pleas of guilty....
842 So. 2d 989, 2003 WL 1872312
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 15, 2003 | Docket: 1730562
Cited 2 times | Published
...Appellant, Charles Joseph Davis, challenges his conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of strong arm robbery. In particular, Davis argues that the trial court erred by ruling that an incriminating statement he made was an admission not subject to exclusion under section 90.410, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(a)....
...duce the State to negotiate a sentence involving some jail time but no probation. Davis thus made the statement at issue as part of ongoing plea negotiations. In so finding, we note the fairly broad scope of the applicable criminal rule and statute, section 90.410. See *992 § 90.410, Fla....
...oceeding. Evidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible, except when such statements are offered in a prosecution under chapter 831." (emphasis added)); Richardson, 706 So.2d at 1355-56 ("Rule 3.172(h) and section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1991), prohibit the admission of statements given during plea negotiations....
24 So. 3d 770, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20557, 2009 WL 5150066
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 2009 | Docket: 1648855
Cited 1 times | Published
...The defendant contends that the admission of the letter was improper because it was the product of the defendant's decision to enter a guilty plea. We disagree. The defendant maintains that the trial courts decision to permit the State to introduce his confession letter into evidence violated section 90.410 of the Florida Statutes (2007), and rules 3.170(f) and 3.172(i) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure because the letter "was the product of the defendant's decision to enter a plea of guilty". Section 90.410 of the Florida Statutes provides: 90.410....
...me charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding. Evidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible, except when such statements are offered in a prosecution under chapter 837. § 90.410, Fla....
957 So. 2d 1210, 2007 WL 1135693
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 2007 | Docket: 1679349
Cited 1 times | Published
.... (Emphasis added). Calabro thereafter filed a motion to exclude the statements relating to his admissions of guilt, alleging that the statements were offers to plead guilty or made in connection with plea negotiations and thus, inadmissible under section 90.410 of the Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h). In responding to Calabro's motion to exclude the statements, the State conceded that the first statement uttered by Calabro, "I will like to avoid the trial and have some kind of plea agreement," is inadmissible under section 90.410, Florida Statutes, and Rule 3.172(h) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure....
...aracterizing a statement or discussion as an inadmissible plea negotiation. The trial court entered an order excluding both statements, concluding that the statements made by Calabro "were offers for a plea agreement and are inadmissible pursuant to § 90.410, Fla....
...admissible offer for a plea agreement, we agree with the State that Calabro's second statement relating to his admission of guilt was an unsolicited, unilateral utterance not made in connection with any plea negotiation and is therefore, admissible. Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2005), provides that: Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an *1213 offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding....
439 So. 2d 963, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22724
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 1983 | Docket: 64600285
Published
170(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1981). This contention is
257 So. 3d 645
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2018 | Docket: 8213955
Published
2 inadmissible. See § 90.410, Fla. Stat. (2016). But even if the court erred
414 So. 2d 269, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20106
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 25, 1982 | Docket: 64590092
Published
fundamental as to not warrant extensive treatment. Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1979) clearly sets forth:
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2025 | Docket: 69728105
Published
inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding.” § 90.410, Fla. Stat.; see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(i)
452 So. 2d 1002, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13879
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 1984 | Docket: 64605898
Published
first point out that the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1983), specifically makes
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 12, 2024 | Docket: 63401319
Published
negotiations. In support of this argument, he cites section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2019), for the proposition
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2019 | Docket: 14883383
Published
-4- section 90.410 does not supply "a ground for refusing
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 18, 2014 | Docket: 2902007
Published
...But the victims would enjoy an
evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether the
United States violated their rights under the Act. As for any consensus among the
states, the majority of the state statutes the intervenors cite adopted Rule 410
verbatim. Compare, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 90.410 (“Evidence of a plea of guilty, later
withdrawn; a plea of nolo contendere; or an offer to plead guilty or nolo
contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or
criminal proceeding.”), with Fed....
979 So. 2d 1144, 2008 WL 1733608
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 2008 | Docket: 325300
Published
...Before SHEPHERD and SUAREZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. We agree with the trial court's order suppressing both (a) the defendant's incriminating *1145 statements during a polygraph examination conducted as a condition of ongoing plea negotiations, see § 90.410, Fla....
563 So. 2d 655
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 1990 | Docket: 64651274
Published
Commission, 469 So.2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); § 90.410, Fla.Stat. (1987). The en banc decision further
