90.610
Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment.—
(1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment, with the following exceptions:
(a) Evidence of any such conviction is inadmissible in a civil trial if it is so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character of the witness.
(b) Evidence of juvenile adjudications are inadmissible under this subsection.
(2) The pendency of an appeal or the granting of a pardon relating to such crime does not render evidence of the conviction from which the appeal was taken or for which the pardon was granted inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of the appeal is admissible.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 16, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379; s. 489, ch. 95-147.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 218
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Pantoja v. State
Pantoja v. State (2011)
“§ 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2002). “[T]he Legislature adopted the express wording of section 90.”
State v. McFadden (2000)
“Where a person is adjudicated guilty by a trial court, there is no question that a defendant or witness could subsequently be impeached by that prior conviction so long as the other necessary requirements of section 90.610 are satisfied. However, trial courts may withhold…”
State v. Raydo (1998)
“[6] Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1995), entitled "Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment," sets forth that: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable…”
Huggins v. State (2004)
“"); § 90.610, Fla. Stat. Ann. (1999) (Law Revision Council Note 1976) (" McArthur .”
State v. Page (1984)
“There is some evidence in the legislative history of section 90.610 that the intention may have been that theft-related misdemeanors are not necessarily included for the purpose of impeachment.”
Roebuck v. State (2007)
“2d DCA 1988), to the extent these cases create a false reporting exception to section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2005). At appellant's trial, the victim, A.”
Dessaure v. State (2004)
“Additionally, section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that "[a] party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year…”
Eaglin v. State (2009)
“Eaglin relies on section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2006), as a basis for his claim that the impeachment should have been permitted.”
Bobb v. State (1994)
“08, Florida Statutes (1977), renumbered in part as section 90.610, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978).”
Hall v. Oakley (1982)
“I think petit theft is a crime involving dishonesty within the meaning of § 90.610, Fla. Stat., necessarily involving some trick, fraud, or false pretense.”
Jackson v. State (2009)
“See § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2007). This inquiry is generally restricted to the existence of prior convictions and the number of convictions, unless the witness answers untruthfully.”
Riechmann v. State (1991)
“The remaining three convictions were admissible pursuant to section 90.610. We agree with Riechmann's contention that, under section 90.”
— 90.610(1) — 111 cases
State v. McFadden (2000)
“Where a person is adjudicated guilty by a trial court, there is no question that a defendant or witness could subsequently be impeached by that prior conviction so long as the other necessary requirements of section 90.610 are satisfied. However, trial courts may withhold…”
State v. Page (1984)
“There is some evidence in the legislative history of section 90.610 that the intention may have been that theft-related misdemeanors are not necessarily included for the purpose of impeachment.”
State v. Raydo (1998)
“[6] Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1995), entitled "Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment," sets forth that: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable…”
Dessaure v. State (2004)
“Additionally, section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that "[a] party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year…”
Cummings v. State (1982)
— 90.610(1)(a) — 6 cases
Pryor v. State (2003)
Peoples v. State (1991)
Howard v. Risch (2007)
City of Miami v. Ross (1997)
— 90.610(1)(b) — 9 cases
State v. J.M. (2002)
Rivers v. State (2001)
Nelson v. State (2012)
Lawton v. State (1989)
Thomas R. Lamb v. State (2017)
— 90.610(2) — 2 cases
McFadden v. State (1999)
Payne v. State (1983)
— 90.610(3) — 4 cases
Dessaure v. State (2004)
“Additionally, section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that "[a] party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year…”
Carlisle v. State (2014)
City of Orlando v. Pineiro (2011)
Howard v. State (1981)
— 90.610(a) — 1 case
Anderson v. State (1989)
— 90.610(l)(a) — 1 case
— 90.610(l)(b) — 5 cases
Benedit v. State (1991)
Hamilton v. State (1998)
Dunlap v. State (1981)
Harrison v. State (2011)
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.