Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.614 (2025)

Prior statements of witnesses.

✓ 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

90.614 Prior statements of witnesses.—

(1) When a witness is examined concerning the witness’s prior written statement or concerning an oral statement that has been reduced to writing, the court, on motion of the adverse party, shall order the statement to be shown to the witness or its contents disclosed to him or her.

(2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on it, or the interests of justice otherwise require. If a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. This subsection is not applicable to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in s. 90.803(18).

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 17, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379; s. 492, ch. 95-147.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 68 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 5× “" § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). Thus, the trial court erred by not permitting defense counsel to admit extrinsic evidence of Brittingham's prior statement.”

MBL Life Assur. Corp. v. Suarez, 768 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). · cites it 10× “§ 90.614, Fla. Stat. (1995). [6] At her discovery deposition, the defendants asked Saez about the statement that she had made to the Coast Guard the morning following the accident.”

Khalid Ali Pasha v. State of Florida, 225 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 2017). · cites it 3× “See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2012); Pearce, 880 So.”

Jeffrey a Helms v. State of Florida, 271 So. 3d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). · cites it 9× “The court found that although appellant’s girlfriend either did not remember appellant’s number or denied giving it to the detective, pursuant to section 90.614, Florida Statutes (2017), the detective could testify about the statement that was made by the girlfriend to the…”

Gudinas v. State, 693 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1997). · cites it 2× “We also agree with the State that the foundational requirements of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1993), were fully satisfied where Harris had the "opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement.”

Rodriguez v. State, 65 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). · cites it 9× “Professor Ehrhardt notes that a witness’s inability to remember prior statements may prevent a statement from being used to refresh recollection; however, "if the prior statement is offered to impeach, section 90.614 permits proof of the prior inconsistent statement when the…”

Elmer v. State, 114 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). · cites it 4× “§ 90.614(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Pugh v.”

Hoctor by & Through Hoctor v. Tucker, 432 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). · cites it 6× “(1) As explained above no inconsistency exists, so the doctrine does not apply. (2) The defense question to Brian referring to the possible inconsistent statement itself contained an adequate reference to the time, place and circumstances to satisfy the doctrine and statute…”

Blanton v. State, 880 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). · cites it 2× “See § 90.614 Fla. Stat. (2003). Appellant's argument overlooks, however, section 90.”

Thornes v. State, 485 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). · cites it 5× “211 (1887), the Supreme Court of Florida said concerning impeachment by prior inconsistent statements: "The familiar rule on this subject is that evidence of this kind is not admissible, even to contradict a witness of the opposite party, unless the attention of the witness,…”

Billy Joe Pitts v. State of Florida, 227 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). · cites it 2× “” (citation omitted)); § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing that extrinsic evidence óf a pri- or inconsistent statement is admissible after a witness “denies making or does hot distinctly admit making” the statement); see also Monday v.”

Suarez v. Benihana Nat'l of Florida Corp., 88 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). · cites it 2× “See also § 90.614, Fla. Stat.2006 (impeachment of witness permitted through introduction of "prior inconsistent statement by that witness”).”

Show all 68 citing cases →

— 90.614(1) — 2 cases

Matthews v. State, 772 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

E.P.W. v. State, 902 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

— 90.614(2) — 48 cases

Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004). “" § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). Thus, the trial court erred by not permitting defense counsel to admit extrinsic evidence of Brittingham's prior statement.”

Khalid Ali Pasha v. State of Florida, 225 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 2017). “See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2012); Pearce, 880 So.”

Gudinas v. State, 693 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1997). “We also agree with the State that the foundational requirements of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1993), were fully satisfied where Harris had the "opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement.”

MBL Life Assur. Corp. v. Suarez, 768 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). “§ 90.614, Fla. Stat. (1995). [6] At her discovery deposition, the defendants asked Saez about the statement that she had made to the Coast Guard the morning following the accident.”

Elmer v. State, 114 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). “§ 90.614(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Pugh v.”

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.