Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.612 (2025)

Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.

✓ 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

90.612 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.—

(1) The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, so as to:

(a) Facilitate, through effective interrogation and presentation, the discovery of the truth.

(b) Avoid needless consumption of time.

(2) Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.

(3) Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.

The judge shall take special care to protect a witness under age 14 from questions that are in a form that cannot reasonably be understood by a person of the age and understanding of the witness, and shall take special care to restrict the unnecessary repetition of questions.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 1, ch. 95-179; s. 2, ch. 2000-316.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 73 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). · cites it 8× “Fla. Stat. § 90.612 (3)(a), (1981). On the other hand there is a similar assumption that a witness did give favorable testimony to the calling party and that the adverse party generally needs, and should be given, the advantage of using leading questions on cross-examination of…”

Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1997). · cites it 4× “1995) (finding trial court did not err in limiting attempted cross-examination of police detective which was "clearly outside the scope of direct"); § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (1993)(limiting cross examination "to the subject matter of direct examination and matters affecting the…”

Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2013). · cites it 3× “However, Goseiminski’s counsel was not permitted to question Thomas about this alleged drug and alcohol use on cross-examination. The Florida Evidence Code provides that “[c]ross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters…”

Boyd v. State, 910 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2005). · cites it 2× “Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (2001), states, "Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”

Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2007). · cites it 2× “Because the trial court acted within its discretion to permit the testimony while Vitale was still on the witness stand, we need not decide whether the question exceeded the permissible scope of redirect.”

Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2002). · cites it 2× “While a trial court has the right to control the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, *322 see § 90.612, Fla. Stat. (2000), and the decision as to whether to permit rebuttal testimony falls within the broad discretion of the trial…”

Geralds v. State, 674 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1996). · cites it 3× “Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1993), states that "[c]ross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”

& SC13-706 Lamar Z. Brooks v. State of Florida & Lamar Z. Brooks v. Julie L. Jones, etc., 175 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2015). · cites it 5× “§ 90.612, Fla. Stat. (2002) (“Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”

Lindsey v. State, 14 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 2009). · cites it 4× “Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (2006), provides: Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”

Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995). · cites it 2× “Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1993), states that "[c]ross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”

Rafael Andres v. State of Florida, 254 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2018). · cites it 2× “Thus, Andres is not entitled to relief on this claim. Cross-Examination Andres argues that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of three witnesses: (A) Jose Perez, (B) Lisbeth Farinas, and (C) Alberto Ruiz.”

Smith v. State, 7 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2009). · cites it 2× “The Florida Evidence Code provides that “[cjross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”

Show all 73 citing cases →

— 90.612(1) — 11 cases

Love v. State, 971 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Pulcini v. State, 41 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Slocum v. State, 757 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

State v. Stone, 42 So. 3d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

M.W. v. State, 263 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

— 90.612(1)(a) — 6 cases

E.t., the Mother v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 261 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Ketterson v. Est. of Bruns, 711 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Gonzalo Bouquet v. Joanna Jones (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).

D. W. v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).

— 90.612(1)(b) — 6 cases

Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2007). “Because the trial court acted within its discretion to permit the testimony while Vitale was still on the witness stand, we need not decide whether the question exceeded the permissible scope of redirect.”

Wolowitz v. Thoroughbred Motors, Inc., 765 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Robinson v. State, 707 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1998).

Tobin v. Leland, 804 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dr. Elias Chousleb (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).

— 90.612(2) — 30 cases

Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1997). “1995) (finding trial court did not err in limiting attempted cross-examination of police detective which was "clearly outside the scope of direct"); § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (1993)(limiting cross examination "to the subject matter of direct examination and matters affecting the…”

Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2013). “However, Goseiminski’s counsel was not permitted to question Thomas about this alleged drug and alcohol use on cross-examination. The Florida Evidence Code provides that “[c]ross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters…”

Boyd v. State, 910 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2005). “Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (2001), states, "Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”

Geralds v. State, 674 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1996). “Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1993), states that "[c]ross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”

Lindsey v. State, 14 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 2009). “Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (2006), provides: Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”

— 90.612(3) — 2 cases

Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “Fla. Stat. § 90.612 (3)(a), (1981). On the other hand there is a similar assumption that a witness did give favorable testimony to the calling party and that the adverse party generally needs, and should be given, the advantage of using leading questions on cross-examination of…”

K.P. v. State, 90 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

— 90.612(3)(a) — 1 case

Murrell v. Edwards, 504 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

— 90.612(l)(a) — 2 cases

McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011).

J.R. v. State, 923 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

— 90.612(l)(b) — 2 cases

Woodson v. Go, 166 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Lion Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Suarez, 844 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

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.