90.609
Character of witness as impeachment.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.609 Character of witness as impeachment.—A party may attack or support the credibility of a witness, including an accused, by evidence in the form of reputation, except that:
(1) The evidence may refer only to character relating to truthfulness.
(2) Evidence of a truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by reputation evidence.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 15, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Morrison v. State
Morrison v. State (2002)
“Pursuant to section 90.609, Florida Statutes (1997), a party may use character evidence to attack the credibility of a witness if the evidence relates to the witness's reputation for truthfulness.”
Ibar v. State (2006)
“Section 90.609, Florida Statutes (1999), provides as follows: A party may attack or support the credibility of a witness, including an accused, by evidence in the form of reputation, except that: (1) The evidence may refer only to character relating to truthfulness.”
Arias v. State (1992)
“The commentators on Florida evidence acknowledge that there is some ambiguity regarding the proper interpretation of subsection 90.609(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the wording of which differs slightly from the counterpart Federal Rule of Evidence.”
Erp v. Carroll (1983)
“party believes the adverse party is credible and may give favorable testimony and, therefore, in good faith calls that party as a witness and the party-witness merely fails to give beneficial testimony but gives no prejudicial testimony, [10] *38 the calling party should not for…”
Larzelere v. State (1996)
“Under section 90.609, Florida Statutes (1991), a party may attack the credibility of a person by introducing character evidence in the form of reputation provided that the evidence relates only to the person's reputation for truthfulness.”
Antone v. State (1980)
“§ 90.609, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1978). [5] In a federal prosecution arising from the murder of Cloud, the Fifth Circuit held that Haskew's false testimony concerning payment of attorney's fees did not require a new trial, because revelation of the fact that such fees were paid by…”
Roosevelt v. State (2010)
“The Second District agreed, stating that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the questioning regarding the expert's formal disciplinary proceedings: Section 90.609, Florida Statutes (2006), provides that the character of a witness may be attacked only by…”
Lawhorne v. State (1986)
“Obviously, the testimony was not offered as evidence of reputation for truthfulness under section 90.609, Florida Statutes (1983). Nor do the provisions on evidence of character or traits of character appear to pertain to the testimony here in question.”
Midtown Enterprises, Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc. (2001)
“See § 90.609, Fla. Stat. (1999). Likewise, it is inadmissible under section 90.”
Jackson v. State (1989)
“First, under section 90.609, Florida Statutes (1985), a party may attack the character of a witness only by reputation evidence referring to character relating to truthfulness.”
Lott v. State (1997)
“Pursuant to section 90.609, Florida Statutes (1993), a party may use character evidence to attack the credibility of a witness if the evidence relates to the witness's reputation for truthfulness.”
Pantoja v. State (2011)
“610 or evidence that the witness has a poor reputation for truthfulness under section 90.609. Accordingly, we cannot agree with the Second District that a witness’ prior false accusation of sexual abuse against a person other than the defendant always constitutes grounds for…”
— 90.609(1) — 3 cases
Pantoja v. State (2008)
— 90.609(2) — 6 cases
Arias v. State (1992)
“The commentators on Florida evidence acknowledge that there is some ambiguity regarding the proper interpretation of subsection 90.609(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the wording of which differs slightly from the counterpart Federal Rule of Evidence.”
Reyes v. State (1991)
PINTADO v. State (2007)
Mohorn v. State (1985)
Knowlton v. State (1989)
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.