90.608
Who may impeach.
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. Central Florida Young Men's Christian, etc.
Heather Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian, etc. (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 .”
Erp v. Carroll (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.”
Rodney Tyrone Lowe v. State of Florida (2018)
““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 (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.”
Morton v. State (1997)
“1984); see 1976 Law Revision Council Note, § 90.608, Fla.Stat.Ann. (1979). In 1990, section 90.”
Robertson v. State (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: .”
Dessaure v. State (2004)
“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 (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.”
Shere v. State (1991)
“§ 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 Construction, Inc. (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.”
Roosevelt v. State (2010)
“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 (2006)
“See § 90.608(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) ("Any party .”
— 90.608(1) — 62 cases
Pearce v. State (2004)
Erp v. Carroll (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 (2001)
Jaggers v. State (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 (2004)
— 90.608(1)(a) — 26 cases
Marshall v. State (2011)
Erp v. Carroll (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 (1984)
Brookings v. State (1986)
Pearce v. State (2004)
— 90.608(1)(b) — 14 cases
Jones v. State (1996)
Love v. State (2008)
Sias v. State (1982)
Gorham v. State (1992)
— 90.608(1)(c) — 1 case
Jaggers v. State (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.”
— 90.608(1)(d) — 5 cases
Cruz v. State (1983)
Edwards v. State (1988)
Gelabert v. State (1981)
Gamble v. State (1986)
Duncan v. State (1984)
— 90.608(1)(e) — 7 cases
Erp v. Carroll (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 (1984)
Thornes v. State (1986)
Gelabert v. State (1981)
— 90.608(1H2) — 1 case
Cruz v. State (1992)
— 90.608(2) — 101 cases
Heather Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian, etc. (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 (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 Construction, Inc. (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 (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 (2006)
“See § 90.608(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) ("Any party .”
— 90.608(2)(e) — 1 case
Love v. State (2008)
— 90.608(3) — 3 cases
Robertson v. State (2000)
— 90.608(4) — 13 cases
Tumblin v. State (2010)
Williams v. State (1997)
Slocum v. State (2000)
Grant v. State (1999)
— 90.608(5) — 32 cases
Robertson v. State (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 (2011)
Robertson v. State (2001)
Johnson v. State (2007)
— 90.608(l)(a) — 8 cases
Rockerman v. State (2000)
Elmer v. State (2012)
Owens v. State (2002)
J.G. v. State (2017)
— 90.608(l)(b) — 4 cases
Strickland v. State (1986)
McCrae v. State (1989)
Perez v. State (1997)
Shakarji v. Demaria (1990)
— 90.608(l)(c) — 2 cases
Plasencia v. State (1983)
Lawhorne v. State (1985)
— 90.608(l)(e) — 2 cases
Cantero v. State (1993)
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.