Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.613 (2025)

Refreshing the memory of a witness.

✓ 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

90.613 Refreshing the memory of a witness.—When a witness uses a writing or other item to refresh memory while testifying, an adverse party is entitled to have such writing or other item produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce it, or, in the case of a writing, to introduce those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness, in evidence. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony, the judge shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objection shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing or other item is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this section, the testimony of the witness concerning those matters shall be stricken.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 491, ch. 95-147.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Geralds v. State, 601 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Geralds v. State, 601 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1992). · cites it 4× “220(b)(1)(x), or pursuant to section 90.613, Florida Statutes (1989). [6] Rule 3.”

Sas v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 112 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). · cites it 2× “See § 90.613, Fla. Stat. (2011); Merlin v. Boca Raton Cmty.”

Crosley Alexander Green v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 28 F.4th 1089 (11th Cir. 2022). “See Fla. Stat. §§ 90.613 , 90.803(5) (2001). 58According to the Court, the location of the notepad at the time of the evi- dentiary hearing was “unknown.”

Morton v. State, 689 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1997). “403, which states that "relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

Reid v. State, 799 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). · cites it 2× “The State misplaces its reliance on section 90.613, Florida Statutes (1997), as support for its argument that the statement could be used to refresh appellant's recollection of Ms.”

Claussen v. State, Dept. of Transp., 750 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). · cites it 3× “Section 90.613, Florida Statutes (1997), permits a party to refresh a witness's recollection by showing the witness a writing, whether prepared by the witness or some other person.”

Scotchel Enter., Inc. v. Velez, 455 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). · cites it 3× “Richards referred to the statement to refresh his recollection, thereby entitling him to the statement under Section 90.613, Florida Statutes (1983). Section 90.”

Harris v. Grunow, 71 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). · cites it 2× “The correct practice is to begin by asking the witness to read the pertinent parts of the prior statement silently in an effort to refresh the witness’s recollection (section 90.613, Florida Statutes (2010)), and then to re-ask the question.”

Merlin v. Boca Raton Cmty. Hosp., 479 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). · cites it 2× “One might infer, therefore, that the trial court was applying section 90.613, Florida Statutes (1983). That section of our evidence code states: 90.”

Hallman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). · cites it 2× “As to the final point on appeal, the defendant's request to introduce the document into evidence should have been handled in accordance with the Evidence Code, section 90.613, Florida Statutes (1991). The point on appeal, however, is directed to cross-examination, which was not…”

J.G. v. State, 213 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). · cites it 2× “” § 90.613, Fla. Stat. (2015). Further, while any party may use “statements” of a witness to impeach the witness, the impeachment statute is silent as to the form of the statements permitted.”

K.E.A. v. State, 802 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). · cites it 2× “); see also § 90.613, Fla. Stat. (1999); Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

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.