Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.610 (2025)

Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment.

✓ 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

90.610 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.

(3) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s. 90.404 or s. 90.608.

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, 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 17× “§ 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2002). “[T]he Legislature adopted the express wording of section 90.”

State v. McFadden, 772 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 27× “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, 713 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1998). · cites it 23× “[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, 889 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 10× “"); § 90.610, Fla. Stat. Ann. (1999) (Law Revision Council Note 1976) (" McArthur .”

State v. Page, 449 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1984). · cites it 16× “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, 953 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). · cites it 15× “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, 891 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 6× “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, 19 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 2009). · cites it 9× “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, 647 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). · cites it 13× “08, Florida Statutes (1977), renumbered in part as section 90.610, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978).”

Hall v. Oakley, 409 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). · cites it 11× “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, 25 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 2009). · cites it 5× “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, 581 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1991). · cites it 9× “The remaining three convictions were admissible pursuant to section 90.610. We agree with Riechmann's contention that, under section 90.”

Show all 218 citing cases →

— 90.610(1) — 111 cases

State v. McFadden, 772 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 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, 449 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 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, 713 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 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, 891 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 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, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

— 90.610(1)(a) — 6 cases

Pryor v. State, 855 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Peoples v. State, 576 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Howard v. Risch, 959 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

City of Miami v. Ross, 695 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Child.'s Palace, Inc. v. Johnson, 609 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

— 90.610(1)(b) — 9 cases

State v. J.M., 824 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2002).

Rivers v. State, 792 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Nelson v. State, 126 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Lawton v. State, 538 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Thomas R. Lamb v. State, 212 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

— 90.610(2) — 2 cases

McFadden v. State, 732 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Payne v. State, 426 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

— 90.610(3) — 4 cases

Carlisle v. State, 137 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

City of Orlando v. Pineiro, 66 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Howard v. State, 397 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

— 90.610(a) — 1 case

Anderson v. State, 549 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

— 90.610(l)(a) — 1 case

Nicholas Alan Nehring v. State of Florida, 225 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

— 90.610(l)(b) — 5 cases

Rosetta McKinzy v. Louie L. Wainwright, 719 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1983).

Benedit v. State, 575 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Hamilton v. State, 722 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Dunlap v. State, 404 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Harrison v. State, 62 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 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.