Florida Statute 90.612 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCE

Chapter 90
EVIDENCE CODE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 90.612

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.

F.S. 90.612 on Google Scholar

F.S. 90.612 on Casetext

Amendments to 90.612

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 90.612

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 90.612.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 90.612

Total Results: 20

Evans, Evans v. Gulf Landings Association, Inc.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-10-25T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: the needless presentation of evidence. Section 90.612(1), Florida Statutes (2022), requires trial courts…quot;[a]void needless consumption of time." § 90.612(1)(a), (b). In furtherance of these ends,

D. W. v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-06-21T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: Fla. 1st DCA 1958)). To that end, section 90.612(1), Florida Statutes (2022), expressly obligates…quot;[a]void needless consumption of time." § 90.612(1)(a), (b). Here, a testifying officer was… satisfy its statutory obligation under section 90.612(1)(b) to "[a]void needless consumption of

Tanshanny T. Wright v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2019-08-16T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: and “[a]void needless consumption of time.” § 90.612(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). Further, a trial

M.W. v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2019-01-09T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 263 So. 3d 214

Snippet: quot; over the interrogation of witnesses. See § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). *216Because we find that

M.W. v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2019-01-09T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 263 So. 3d 214

Snippet: quot; over the interrogation of witnesses. See § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). *216Because we find that

M.W. v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2019-01-08T23:53:00-08:00

Snippet: control” over the interrogation of witnesses. See § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). Because we find that

E.T., THE MOTHER v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2019-01-01T23:53:00-08:00

Snippet: , and (2) avoid needless consumption of time. § 90.612(1)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (2018). “When required by

Rafael Andres v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2018-09-20T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 254 So. 3d 283

Snippet: affecting the credibility of the witness." § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). The trial judge has wide

Abaunza v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2015-12-11T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 180 So. 3d 1201, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18554, 2015 WL 8519504

Snippet: to an abuse of discretion standard); see also § ■90.612(1), Fla. Stat. Appellant additionally argues that

Woodson v. Go

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2015-06-26T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 166 So. 3d 231, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9744, 2015 WL 3903589

Snippet: witness testimony. We would observe that section 90.612(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), expressly requires

& SC13-706 Lamar Z. Brooks v. State of Florida and Lamar Z. Brooks v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2015-05-07T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 175 So. 3d 204

Snippet: reasons. First, the plain'language of section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes, expressly provides trial … matters discussed during direct examination. § 90.612, Fla. Stat. (2002) (“Cross-examination of a witness… (emphasis supplied). Thus, pursuant to section 90.612(2), the .trial court could have permitted the defense

Gosciminski v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2013-09-12T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 132 So. 3d 678, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 638, 2013 WL 5313183, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1988

Snippet: matters affecting the credibility of the witness.” § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). The credibility of a witness…scope of cross-examination permitted by section 90.612(2). As Goseiminski asserted to the trial court,

K.P. v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2012-06-13T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 90 So. 3d 890, 2012 WL 2122162, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9580

Snippet: questions should be permitted on cross-examination.” § 90.612(3), Fla. Stat. (2010). There was no reason why

Snelgrove v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2012-04-19T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 107 So. 3d 242, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 303, 2012 WL 1345485, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 754

Snippet: permit cross-examination into additional matters. § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2008); see Boyd v. State, 910 So

Pedro v. Baber

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2012-03-07T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 83 So. 3d 912, 2012 WL 716046, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3682

Snippet: discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.” § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). [W]hen the direct examination

Poland v. Zaccheo

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2012-02-15T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 82 So. 3d 133, 2012 WL 469813, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2269

Snippet: discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.” § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2008); see also Boyd v. State,

Linic v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2012-02-08T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 80 So. 3d 382, 2012 WL 385497, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1771

Snippet: examination on issues raised by direct examination. § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“Cross-examination of a

McCray v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2011-07-07T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 71 So. 3d 848, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 383, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1565, 2011 WL 2637377

Snippet: quot;[a]void needless consumption of time." § 90.612(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). Further, a trial

Fischer v. Fischer

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2011-03-04T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 55 So. 3d 725, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2693, 2011 WL 743431

Snippet: and develop a complete record for appeal. See § 90.612, Fla. Stat. (2010). 5D09-1890 District

State v. Stone

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2010-07-28T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 42 So. 3d 279, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10849, 2010 WL 2925691

Snippet: witnesses and the presentation of evidence." § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). The prosecutor chose not