Cases from cite.case.law:

RIVERA, v. STATE, 274 So. 3d 537 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . example, when impeachment involves disclosing the witness's prior felony convictions under section 90.610 . . .

NOCK, v. STATE, 256 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 2018)

. . . Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2014), provides: "A party may attack the credibility of any witness . . .

FARR, v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 30 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .§ 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . See Ross, 913 So.2d at 1186; § 90.610, Fla. Stat. . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 235 So. 3d 265 (Fla. 2017)

. . . that because the conviction was not disclosed and could have been used to impeach Walker under section 90.610 . . . false statement, it could not have been used to impeach her credibility at Smith’s trial under section 90.610 . . . Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes, provides that evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime . . . involves ‘dishonesty’ so as to bring any conviction for such a crime within the scope of subsection 90.610 . . .

NEHRING, v. STATE, 225 So. 3d 916 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . § 90.610(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). The same rule applies in criminal trials. Pryor v. . . .

BYRD, v. STATE, 221 So. 3d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

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

R. LAMB, v. STATE, 212 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . We note that if the adjudication occurred when the victim was a minor, section 90.610(1)(b), Florida . . .

SPRADLING, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2016), provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness . . . It is well settled that pursuant to section 90.610, Florida Statutes, “when a witness has been convicted . . .

T. KENNER, v. STATE, 208 So. 3d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

GUDMESTAD, v. STATE, 209 So. 3d 602 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year .... ” § 90.610 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CLARKE,, 822 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . In interpreting section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the statute at issue in McFadden, we stated . . . : In the absence of a definition of “conviction” in section 90.610(1), it is appropriate to resort to . . . For purposes of impeaching a witness with a prior conviction under section 90.610(1), however, we find . . .

CLARKE, v. UNITED STATES, 184 So. 3d 1107 (Fla. 2016)

. . . In interpreting section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the statute at issue in McFadden, we stated . . . : In the absence of a definition of “conviction” in section 90.610(1), it is appropriate to resort to . . . For purposes of impeaching a witness with a prior conviction under section 90.610(1), however, we find . . .

GORDON, v. STATE, 181 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2009); Brown v. State, 787 So.2d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). . . .

A. HERNANDEZ, JR. v. STATE A. Jr. v. L., 180 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 2015)

. . . under section 90.609(1), Florida Statutes, and relating to evidence ■ of certain crimes under section 90.610 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 175 So. 3d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. . . . dishonesty or false statement, the nature of these convictions would have been admissible under section 90.610 . . . State, 419 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that a witness may properly be impeached under section 90.610 . . .

FARRELL, v. STATE, 186 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . 3) attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of sections *90.609 or 90.610 . . . evidence in the form of reputation (under section 90.609) or conviction of certain crimes (under section • 90.610 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 163 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 2015)

. . . APPENDIX 3.8(b) CONVICTIQN-Q-E CERTAIN CRIMES AS IMPEACHMENT §§ 90.107, 90.610(1), Fla.Stat.- To be given . . .

OLSON, v. LITTLE,, 604 F. App'x 387 (6th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 90.610(1); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 626-1, R. 609(a); Ill. Evid. R. 609(a) (subject to balancing); Kan. . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 157 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 2015)

. . . Comment This instruction was adopted in 2015. 2.5 CONVICTION OF CERTAIN CRIMES AS IMPEACHMENT §§ 90.107, 90.610 . . .

HAYES, v. STATE, 140 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 90.610, Fla. Stat.; Mosley v. . . . State, 91 So.3d 928, 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting section 90.610 limits the impeachment of a witness . . .

WILCOX, v. STATE, 143 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2014)

. . . Pursuant to section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2008), the State may attack the credibility of a witness . . . further into whether the felony involved dishonesty or a false statement because the intent of subsection 90.610 . . .

DAVIS, v. STATE v. D., 136 So. 3d 1169 (Fla. 2014)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

J. CARLISLE, v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 479 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . The state argued the false accusation was inadmissible under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2007), . . . The court found the impeachment would be improper under 90.610 because that section allowed impeachment . . . The Court also discussed the potential admissibility of the prior recantation under sections 90.610 and . . . The Court rejected the concept that a general false reporting exception existed under section 90.610, . . . that ”[n]othing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s. 90.404 or 90.608.” § 90.610 . . .

MATHIS, v. STATE, 135 So. 3d 484 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.610(1). . . . But when a witness is questioned about his or her prior convictions pursuant to section 90.610, the questioning . . .

CHILDERS, v. L. FLOYD,, 736 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2013)

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

TILUS, v. STATE, 121 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment-” § 90.610 . . .

GOSCIMINSKI, v. STATE, 132 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2013)

. . . See § 90.610, Fla. . . . convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment.” § 90.610 . . .

YUDIN, v. STATE, 117 So. 3d 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Prior convictions can be used in considering the credibility of a witness, § 90.610, Fla. . . .

HENRY, v. STATE, 123 So. 3d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . have assumed that the defense was seeking to impeach the victim by a prior conviction under section 90.610 . . .

BAKER, v. STATE, 102 So. 3d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . person has been arrested, even without conviction, is deemed so prejudicial as to require reversal”); § 90.610 . . .

STATE v. JOUZDANI, v., 98 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . This subject is addressed in more detail in section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes, (2008), which states . . . in material part: 90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment.— (1) A party may attack the credibility . . . offense is the most reliable way to prove that the witness was convicted within the meaning of section 90.610 . . .

NELSON, v. STATE, 126 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 90.610(1)(b), Florida Statutes, specifically excludes using such adjudications to attack the . . .

BROCK, v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES,, 98 So. 3d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . McFadden, 772 So.2d 1209, 1214 (Fla.2000) (“Defining ‘conviction’ [as used in section 90.610(1), Florida . . .

MORTIMER, v. STATE, 100 So. 3d 99 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . McFadden, 772 So.2d 1209, 1213 (Fla.2000) (“As this Court has determined, section 90.610(1) involves . . .

JONES, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 487 F. App'x 563 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 90.610(1)); see also Burst v. . . .

HAYES, v. STATE, 93 So. 3d 427 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. . . .

MOSLEY, v. STATE, 91 So. 3d 928 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2011), provides as follows: A party may attack the credibility of . . .

TOMAS, v. STATE, 126 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . “The plain language of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions . . .

FLINT, v. STATE, 84 So. 3d 469 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); Smith v. . . .

FREEMAN, v. STATE, 74 So. 3d 123 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (permitting impeachment by evidence of prior felony convictions). . . .

MONCUS II, v. STATE, 69 So. 3d 341 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Evidence of a prior felony conviction or crime of dishonesty is admissible for impeachment under section 90.610 . . .

BARCOMB, v. STATE, 68 So. 3d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Florida Rule of Evidence section 90.610(1) provides that: A party may attack the credibility of any witness . . . knowledge and a certified copy of a conviction before the questions may be asked: Although section 90.610 . . . The Florida courts should continue to require counsel cross-examining concerning a section 90.610 conviction . . .

CITY OF ORLANDO, v. PINEIRO,, 66 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . biased. (3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of s. 90.609 or s. 90.610 . . . Pineiro argues that no error occurred because section 90.610 permits a party to attack the credibility . . . However, section 90.610(3) specifically provides that nothing in section 90.610 affects the admissibility . . .

SCHOFIELD, v. STATE, 67 So. 3d 1066 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2010), the fact of Scott’s prior convictions for felonies and . . .

HARRISON, v. STATE, 62 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . In granting the State’s motion in limine, the trial court relied on section 90.610(l)(b), Florida Statutes . . . ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . § 90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment— (1) A party . . .

HAYWARD, v. STATE, 59 So. 3d 303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2008), titled “Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment,” provides . . . crime punishable by a year or more in prison or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement. § 90.610 . . .

TRAPP, v. STATE, 57 So. 3d 269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Subsection 90.610(1) of the Florida Evidence Code provides: A party may attack the credibility of any . . . However, Johnson interpreted section 90.08, the predecessor to section 90.610. . . . Section 90.610(1) removed the special status of perjury convictions. . . .

BALLARD, v. A. McNEIL,, 785 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (N.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . Florida Statutes section 90.610 provides that a party may attack the credibility of any witness, including . . . Stat. § 90.610 (2003). . . .

PANTOJA, v. STATE, 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011)

. . . , Florida Statutes (2002), because there is a false reporting exception to section 90.610’s criminal . . . Section 90.610 provides: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, . . . The Florida Legislature’s intent regarding section 90.610 is clear. . . . We agree with the First District’s determination that section 90.610 does not permit an exception to . . . Accordingly, we approve the First District’s decision in Pantoja, holding that section 90.610 does not . . .

STALLWORTH, v. STATE, 53 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes, provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including . . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . .

GERALDS, v. STATE v. A., 111 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 2010)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. . . .

ROOSEVELT, v. STATE, 42 So. 3d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Under section 90.610, a witness’s ability can only be impeached by convictions of crimes involving false . . . That case, however, was decided under sections 90.609 and 90.610, Florida Statutes. . . .

RODRIGUEZ, v. STATE v. A., 39 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2010)

. . . Under § 90.610, Fla. . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 25 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 2009)

. . . Pursuant to section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2007), a party can attack the credibility of a witness . . . See § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . allowing inquiry as to the specific nature of the charge would circumvent the prohibitions of section 90.610 . . .

ATIS, v. STATE, 32 So. 3d 81 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2007), provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness . . .

T. EAGLIN, v. STATE, 19 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 2009)

. . . Eaglin relies on section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2006), as a basis for his claim that the impeachment . . . Section 90.610 states: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by . . . In the context of section 90.610(1), this Court has defined a conviction as “an adjudication of guilt . . . Yet, even assuming that a false reporting exception to section 90.610 should be recognized, an issue . . . State, 536 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), which recognized a "false reporting” exception to section 90.610 . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 7 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2009)

. . . .” § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

In COMMITMENT OF DeBOLT. v., 19 So. 3d 335 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Under section 90.610, a witness’s credibility can only be impeached by convictions of crimes involving . . .

RIVERA, v. STATE, 2 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2007); Brown v. State, 787 So.2d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). . . .

DONTON, v. STATE, 1 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2005), allows a party to “attack the credibility of any witness, . . .

PANTOJA, v. STATE, 990 So. 2d 626 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . biased. (3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of s. 90.609 or s. 90.610 . . . Section 90.610 provides for impeachment based on a witness’ conviction for á crime punishable by more . . . The only such admissible evidence is evidence of a prior conviction under section 90.610 or evidence . . . 710 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), “to the extent they create a false reporting exception to section 90.610 . . .

WASHINGTON, v. STATE, 985 So. 2d 51 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See, e.g., § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); Jackson, 545 So.2d at 264. . . . “The plain language of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions . . .

J. COOPER, v. A. McNEIL,, 622 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 90.610(1), a party may attack the credibility of a witness by evidence that the witness has been . . . Theft is a crime of dishonesty under § 90.610. State v. Page, 449 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1984). . . . .

LOVE, v. STATE, 971 So. 2d 280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . cross examination, the state did not impeach him with a conviction of any crime, pursuant to section 90.610 . . .

MARTINO, v. STATE, 964 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . . § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

ROGERS, v. STATE, 964 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Generally, under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2006), impeachment by prior convictions is “restricted . . .

D. HOWARD, Jr. v. RISCH, JR, 959 So. 2d 308 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . inadmissible “if it is so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character of the -witness.” § 90.610 . . .

ROEBUCK, v. STATE, 953 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . .2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), to the extent these cases create a false reporting exception to section 90.610 . . . Section 90.610, Florida Statutes, provides that a party may attack the credibility of any witness through . . . However, the Second District has recognized an exception to section 90.610 where a witness has previously . . . the defense, without expressly acknowledging that such a ruling was based on an exception to section 90.610 . . . First, the Legislature adopted the express wording of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, in an effort . . .

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, v. FUTCH,, 944 So. 2d 469 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . constitutes a conviction involving dishonesty or a false statement for impeachment purposes under section 90.610 . . . dishonesty or a false statement and, therefore, is admissible for impeachment purposes under section 90.610 . . . Section 90.610(1) of the Florida Statutes is the state counterpart to Rule 609(a)(l)-(2) of the Federal . . . As such, cases interpreting Rule 609 are persuasive authority for courts interpreting section 90.610( . . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2006) Commentary on 1978 Amendment; see also Seven Hills, Inc. v. . . .

WELCH, v. STATE, 940 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . . — Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610. . . . The section relevant to this opinion is 90.610, “[c]onviction of certain crimes as impeachment.” . . .

HENRY, v. STATE, 948 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 2006)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). . . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. . . . See §§ 90.404(2)(a), 90.610, Fla. . . .

RAY, v. STATE, 933 So. 2d 716 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .

BOWERS, v. STATE, 929 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 923 So. 2d 541 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2001), a party may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing . . .

CULLEN, v. STATE, 920 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Defendant recognizes that section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2004), which allows impeachment by prior . . .

ROSS, v. STATE, 913 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . The general rule for impeachment by prior convictions, as codified in section 90.610, Florida Statutes . . .

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 . . . imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted_” Importantly, section 90.610 . . . admissibility of evidence under section 90.608 is not, affected by the limitations contained in section 90.610 . . . State, 335 So.2d 280, 284 (Fla.1976), a ease concerning section 90.610(1), the Court stated: When there . . . The defense objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that under section 90.610(1), the State could . . .

HUGGINS, v. STATE, 889 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2004)

. . . conviction, a prerequisite to introduction of the record of the conviction against a witness under section 90.610 . . . the witness the straight-forward question as to whether he had ever been convicted of a crime.”); § 90.610 . . . Section 90.610(1) further provides that a “party may attack the credibility of any witness, including . . . In turn, section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2002), provides in pertinent part that “[a] party may attack . . . The general principle behind section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2002), which permits the use of convictions . . . That provision clearly implicates the application of section 90.610, which allows the admission of prior . . .

AHARIACHE, v. STATE, 882 So. 2d 523 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . inquiring — beyond the admitted fact that the testifying defendant had previous, felony convictions, see § 90.610 . . .

J. JACOBS, v. STATE, 880 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2004)

. . . See § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (1997); Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 610.5 (2001). . . .

NOVA, v. STATE, 874 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . The evidence of the clerk’s prior convictions is governed by section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2003), . . .

CRUMBLEY, v. STATE, 876 So. 2d 599 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . McFadden, 772 So.2d 1209, 1213 (Fla.2000) (“As this Court has determined, section 90.610(1) involves . . .

In COMMITMENT R. CARTWRIGHT. R. v., 870 So. 2d 152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Page, 449 So.2d 813, 815 (Fla.1984), the court said, “Subsection 90.610(1), dealing with the use of prior . . . convictions for the purpose of impeachment, clearly falls within the realm of ‘procedure.’ ” Subsection 90.610 . . . court did not provide any guidance concerning the basis on which it had chosen to characterize section 90.610 . . . McFadden, 772 So.2d 1209, 1213 (Fla.2000) (relying on Page’s characterization of section 90.610(1) as . . . responsibility to determine what constitutes a prior ‘conviction’ for purposes of impeachment under section 90.610 . . .

L. REEVES, v. STATE, 862 So. 2d 60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Prior False Accusations Generally, other than evidence of prior convictions under section 90.610(1), . . .

PRYOR, v. STATE, 855 So. 2d 134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . See § 90.610(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . However, section 90.610 does not provide for exclusion of evidence of even remote convictions in a criminal . . . See § 90.610(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; Peoples v. . . . State, 576 So.2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (noting that, although section 90.610(1), “precludes evidence . . .

BUTLER, v. STATE, 842 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2003)

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

L. BURST, v. STATE, 836 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Defense counsel’s question as to prior convictions “of a crime” was broader than allowed under section 90.610 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 834 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . having been “convicted” of an offense as is required to impeach a witness under Florida Rule of Evidence 90.610 . . .

ROBERTSON, v. STATE, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)

. . . . — Evidence of the character of a untness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610. (Emphasis supplied.) . . .

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

. . . See § 90.610(1)(b), Fla. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. SAINTAUDE, Jr., 56 M.J. 888 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2002)

. . . Stat. ch. 90.610(1)(1997)). . We choose not to apply the definition of "conviction” in Fla. . . .

TROWELL, v. J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. a, 813 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2000). . . . Section 90.610, Florida Statutes, contains no such time limitation. . . . In fact, the notes from the Law Revision Counsel, published with the annotated version of section 90.610 . . .

J. BAKER, v. STATE, 804 So. 2d 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Under sections 90.609 and 90.610, Florida Statutes, the character of a witness may be impeached by evidence . . . While it is generally true that, other than evidence of prior convictions under section 90.610(1), credibility . . . Rather, sections 90.609 and 90.610, Florida Statutes (1997), permit the character of a witness to be . . .

STATE v. WRIGHT, 803 So. 2d 793 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . convictions for witnesses intended to be called and whom are subject to impeachment pursuant to section 90.610 . . .

WAGGONER, v. STATE, 800 So. 2d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 90.610(1) provides as follows: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including . . .

J. JACOBS, v. STATE, 800 So. 2d 322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (1997); Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 610.5 (2001). . . .

LaMARR, v. LANG,, 796 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . While section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2000) allows evidence regarding the conviction of certain crimes . . .

RIVERS, v. STATE, 792 So. 2d 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . State, 710 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (error to permit defense witness to be impeached under § 90.610 . . . The applicable provision in the Florida Evidence Code states: 90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as . . . exceptions: (b) Evidence of juvenile adjudications are [sic] inadmissible under this subsection. § 90.610 . . .

BROWN, v. STATE, 787 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2000), states that, “[a] party may attack thé credibility of any witness . . . imprisonment in excess of [one] year under the law under which the witness was convicted, .... ” See § 90.610 . . . It is error, however, to allow a witness to be impeached pursuant to section 90.610(1) when he was not . . .

JENKINS, v. D. WESSEL,, 780 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . cross-examination did not relate to any of the methods of impeachment described in sections 90.608 and 90.610 . . .