Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.608 (2025)

Who may impeach.

✓ 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

90.608 Who may impeach.—Any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by:

(1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony.

(2) Showing that the witness is biased.

(3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of s. 90.609 or s. 90.610.

(4) Showing a defect of capacity, ability, or opportunity in the witness to observe, remember, or recount the matters about which the witness testified.

(5) Proof by other witnesses that material facts are not as testified to by the witness being impeached.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 14, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379; s. 1, ch. 90-174; s. 488, ch. 95-147.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 358 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Heather Worley v. Cent. Florida Young Men's Christian, etc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Heather Worley v. Cent. Florida Young Men's Christian, etc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017). · cites it 11× “And section 90.608, Florida Statutes, provides that “[a]ny party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by .”

Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). · cites it 23× “Fla. Stat. § 90.608 (1), (1981). There was a broad primitive notion that a party was morally bound by the statements of his witness.”

Rodney Tyrone Lowe v. State of Florida, 259 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2018). · cites it 8× ““To impeach a witness by use of a prior inconsistent statement pursuant to section 90.608, Florida Statutes (2008), the prior statement must be both (1) inconsistent with the witness’s in-court testimony, and (2) the statement of the witness.”

Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 9× “Section 90.608, Florida Statutes (2006), provides that “the credibility of a witness” may be attacked by “[s]howing that the witness is biased.”

Morton v. State, 689 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1997). · cites it 11× “1984); see 1976 Law Revision Council Note, § 90.608, Fla.Stat.Ann. (1979). In 1990, section 90.”

Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002). · cites it 4× “404(1)(c) that is pertinent in this case is section 90.608(5), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides: Any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by: .”

Dessaure v. State, 891 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 6× “610(3) explicitly provides that the admissibility of evidence under section 90.608 is not affected by the limitations contained in section 90.”

Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). · cites it 9× “See § 90.608, Fla. Stat. (1985). I am not persuaded by the majority's contrary position on this evidentiary point, and I would not reverse the niece's conviction on that basis.”

Shere v. State, 579 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1991). · cites it 11× “§ 90.608, Fla. Stat. [11] "This rule resulted from a belief that the party who calls a witness to testify vouches to the court and jury for the credibility of that witness.”

Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Constr., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009). · cites it 8× “Section 90.608(2), Florida Statutes (2006), expressly authorizes the introduction of evidence to attack the credibility of a witness by "[s]howing that the witness is biased.”

Roosevelt v. State, 42 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). · cites it 14× “See § 90.608, Fla.Stat. (1987). Cruse was attempting to introduce evidence of an arguably inadequate evaluation by an expert over ten years before he ever conducted an evaluation in this case.”

Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). · cites it 6× “See § 90.608(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) ("Any party .”

Show all 358 citing cases →

— 90.608(1) — 62 cases

Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004).

Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “Fla. Stat. § 90.608 (1), (1981). There was a broad primitive notion that a party was morally bound by the statements of his witness.”

Rose v. State, 787 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2001).

Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). “See § 90.608, Fla. Stat. (1985). I am not persuaded by the majority's contrary position on this evidentiary point, and I would not reverse the niece's conviction on that basis.”

Smith v. State, 880 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

— 90.608(1)(a) — 26 cases

Marshall v. State, 68 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “Fla. Stat. § 90.608 (1), (1981). There was a broad primitive notion that a party was morally bound by the statements of his witness.”

Ryan v. State, 457 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Brookings v. State, 495 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1986).

Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004).

— 90.608(1)(b) — 14 cases

Jones v. State, 678 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Love v. State, 971 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Sias v. State, 416 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Gorham v. State, 597 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1992).

Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon, 466 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

— 90.608(1)(c) — 1 case

— 90.608(1)(d) — 5 cases

Cruz v. State, 437 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Edwards v. State, 530 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

Gelabert v. State, 407 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

Gamble v. State, 492 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Duncan v. State, 450 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

— 90.608(1)(e) — 7 cases

Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “Fla. Stat. § 90.608 (1), (1981). There was a broad primitive notion that a party was morally bound by the statements of his witness.”

Dickey v. State, 458 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Carre, 436 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Thornes v. State, 485 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Gelabert v. State, 407 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

— 90.608(1H2) — 1 case

Cruz v. State, 593 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

— 90.608(2) — 101 cases

Heather Worley v. Cent. Florida Young Men's Christian, etc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017). “And section 90.608, Florida Statutes, provides that “[a]ny party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by .”

Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011). “Section 90.608, Florida Statutes (2006), provides that “the credibility of a witness” may be attacked by “[s]howing that the witness is biased.”

Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Constr., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009). “Section 90.608(2), Florida Statutes (2006), expressly authorizes the introduction of evidence to attack the credibility of a witness by "[s]howing that the witness is biased.”

Dessaure v. State, 891 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2004). “610(3) explicitly provides that the admissibility of evidence under section 90.608 is not affected by the limitations contained in section 90.”

Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “See § 90.608(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) ("Any party .”

— 90.608(2)(e) — 1 case

Love v. State, 971 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

— 90.608(3) — 3 cases

& SC13-2330 Michael A. Hernandez, Jr. v. State of Florida & Michael A. Hernandez, Jr. v. Julie L. Jones, etc., 180 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 2015).

Robertson v. State, 780 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Ward L. Kenyon v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).

— 90.608(4) — 13 cases

Tumblin v. State, 29 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 2010).

George Gomillion v. State of Florida, 267 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Williams v. State, 689 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Slocum v. State, 757 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Grant v. State, 738 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

— 90.608(5) — 32 cases

Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002). “404(1)(c) that is pertinent in this case is section 90.608(5), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides: Any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by: .”

Special v. Baux, 79 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Robertson v. State, 780 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2007).

Joseph Eli Bearden v. State of Florida, 161 So. 3d 1257 (Fla. 2015).

— 90.608(l)(a) — 8 cases

Rockerman v. State, 773 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Elmer v. State, 114 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

Owens v. State, 817 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

J.G. v. State, 213 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Annis v. First Union Nat'l Bank of Florida, 566 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

— 90.608(l)(b) — 4 cases

Strickland v. State, 498 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

McCrae v. State, 549 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Perez v. State, 691 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Shakarji v. Demaria, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 188 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990).

— 90.608(l)(c) — 2 cases

Plasencia v. State, 426 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Lawhorne v. State, 481 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

— 90.608(l)(e) — 2 cases

Cantero v. State, 612 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Tallahassee Junior Academy v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 461 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

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.