Florida Statute 90.614 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCE

Chapter 90
EVIDENCE CODE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 90.614

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.

F.S. 90.614 on Google Scholar

F.S. 90.614 on CourtListener

Amendments to 90.614

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 90.614

Total Results: 66

Gudinas v. State

693 So. 2d 953, 1997 WL 166238

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 1997 | Docket: 1144752

Cited 84 times | Published

State that the foundational requirements of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1993), were fully satisfied

Pearce v. State

880 So. 2d 561, 2004 WL 1469337

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 2004 | Docket: 1689202

Cited 48 times | Published

also Florida Evidence § 614.1. As provided in section 90.614(2), Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent

Blanton v. State

880 So. 2d 798, 2004 WL 1799760

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2004 | Docket: 442825

Cited 23 times | Published

explain the statement cannot be established. See § 90.614 Fla. Stat. (2003). Appellant's argument overlooks

Jennings v. State

512 So. 2d 169, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 434

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 27, 1987 | Docket: 1517294

Cited 22 times | Published

he had made the prior inconsistent statements. § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). The statements were not

Nowlin v. State

346 So. 2d 1020

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 26, 1977 | Docket: 1734060

Cited 21 times | Published

(Fla.2d DCA 1973); see Florida Evidence Code, Section 90.614(2) (effective July 1, 1977); Berger et al.

KIWANIS CLUB v. De Kalafe

723 So. 2d 838, 1998 WL 712705

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1998 | Docket: 1320140

Cited 10 times | Published

articles were properly admissible for this purpose. § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); see Hernandez v. Charles

Fleming v. State

457 So. 2d 499

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 1984 | Docket: 426159

Cited 10 times | Published

believe that this ruling also constituted error. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides that

McDaniel v. State

24 So. 3d 654, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19299, 2009 WL 4723310

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 2009 | Docket: 77385

Cited 9 times | Published

testimony with prior inconsistent statements. See § 90.614, Fla. Stat. (2007); Varas v. State, 815 So.2d

Hernandez v. CHARLES E. VIRGIN, MD, PA

505 So. 2d 1369, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1031

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 1987 | Docket: 1454692

Cited 8 times | Published

admissible as long as the requirements of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1985), are met, as they

Thornes v. State

485 So. 2d 1357, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 757

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 1986 | Docket: 1276003

Cited 8 times | Published

74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982). The state argues that section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1983), bars the admissibility

Hutchinson v. State

397 So. 2d 1001

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1981 | Docket: 1706791

Cited 7 times | Published

opportunity to admit or deny the prior statements. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1979) states in pertinent

MBL Life Assur. Corp. v. Suarez

768 So. 2d 1129, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2010

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2000 | Docket: 2452135

Cited 6 times | Published

extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible ... § 90.614, Fla. Stat. (1995).[6] At her discovery deposition

Gore v. Dugger

763 F. Supp. 1110, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18442, 1989 WL 248505

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 17, 1989 | Docket: 1153924

Cited 6 times | Published

this testimony pursuant to Florida Evidence Code § 90.614(2) because defense counsel had failed to lay a

Sayad v. Alley

508 So. 2d 485, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1434

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1987 | Docket: 770300

Cited 6 times | Published

plaintiff was not properly preserved below. See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1985); Hoctor v. Tucker, 432 So

Williams v. State

472 So. 2d 1350, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1816

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 1985 | Docket: 1793752

Cited 6 times | Published

States v. Sisto, 534 F.2d 616 (5th Cir.1976); see § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1983). As the only witness who

Williams v. State

472 So. 2d 1350, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1816

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 1985 | Docket: 1793752

Cited 6 times | Published

States v. Sisto, 534 F.2d 616 (5th Cir.1976); see § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1983). As the only witness who

Suarez v. Benihana National of Florida Corp.

88 So. 3d 349, 2012 WL 1605268, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7208

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 2012 | Docket: 60308244

Cited 5 times | Published

or in a deposition”) (emphasis added). See also § 90.614, Fla. Stat.2006 (impeachment of witness permitted

Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co.

43 So. 3d 182, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13622, 2010 WL 3564711

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 2010 | Docket: 60295432

Cited 5 times | Published

inconsistent statement to impeach the homeowner under section 90.614, Florida Statutes, his testimony does not go

Wilcox v. State

770 So. 2d 733, 2000 WL 1671517

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 2000 | Docket: 1779338

Cited 5 times | Published

involved here. Compatible with the requirements of section 90.614, Florida Statutes, the prosecutor showed the

Smith v. State

762 So. 2d 929, 2000 WL 526083

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 2000 | Docket: 1311495

Cited 5 times | Published

admissible to impeach the witness' credibility. See § 90.614(2) Fla. Stat. Although the predicate of time,

Rodriguez v. State

664 So. 2d 1077, 1995 WL 712590

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 1995 | Docket: 1229627

Cited 5 times | Published

prior statements had been disclosed to him. See § 90.614, Fla. Stat. *1078 (1993). We conclude that no

DML v. State

976 So. 2d 670, 2008 WL 724024

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2008 | Docket: 1274879

Cited 4 times | Published

extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. § 90.614(2). "Prior to questioning a witness about the

Irons v. State

498 So. 2d 958, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2450

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 1986 | Docket: 1335602

Cited 4 times | Published

opportunity to explain or deny the prior statements. § 90.614(2). Irons' conviction is vacated, and the case

Hoctor by and Through Hoctor v. Tucker

432 So. 2d 1352

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 12, 1983 | Docket: 1265074

Cited 4 times | Published

explain, admit or deny making the statement. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1981); Hutchinson v.

Elmer v. State

114 So. 3d 198, 2012 WL 4838884, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17748

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2012 | Docket: 60231795

Cited 3 times | Published

made may be proved by another witness. See id. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that

Chaudoin v. State

707 So. 2d 813, 1998 WL 66569

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 1998 | Docket: 1259427

Cited 3 times | Published

admit, deny or explain making the statement. Section 90.614(2) provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior

Chaudoin v. State

707 So. 2d 813, 1998 WL 66569

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 1998 | Docket: 1259427

Cited 3 times | Published

admit, deny or explain making the statement. Section 90.614(2) provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior

Kimble v. State

537 So. 2d 1094, 1989 WL 5255

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 1989 | Docket: 427065

Cited 3 times | Published

denied, 361 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1978). See also, § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1987). Sub judice, the appellant's

McGuire v. State

411 So. 2d 939

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 1982 | Docket: 1696917

Cited 3 times | Published

admit, deny, or explain the prior statements. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that

Billy Joe Pitts v. State of Florida

227 So. 3d 674, 2017 WL 3428273

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2017 | Docket: 6135908

Cited 2 times | Published

presented during trial.” (citation omitted)); § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing that extrinsic

Khalid Ali Pasha v. State of Florida

225 So. 3d 688, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 569, 2017 WL 1954975, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 1067

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 11, 2017 | Docket: 6060823

Cited 2 times | Published

attention to the prior inconsistent statement. See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2012); Pearce, 880 So.2d at 570

Woodall v. State

39 So. 3d 419, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9210, 2010 WL 2539429

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 2010 | Docket: 2409195

Cited 2 times | Published

still admissible for impeachment purposes under section 90.614, Florida Statutes, as long as a proper foundation

Jackson v. State

961 So. 2d 1104, 2007 WL 2212706

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2007 | Docket: 468788

Cited 2 times | Published

inconsistent statement. See id. at 570 (quoting § 90.614(2)). Even if the State had laid the proper foundation

Jennings v. Crosby

392 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29734, 2005 WL 2406040

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 2005 | Docket: 2363562

Cited 2 times | Published

permitted the entry of the documents under section 90.614 of the Florida evidence code), but had admitted

Matthews v. State

772 So. 2d 600, 2000 WL 1760236

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 2000 | Docket: 1729390

Cited 2 times | Published

admission of the invoice in this manner was error. Section 90.614(1), "Prior statements of witnesses," provides:

Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP v. Moore

702 So. 2d 1295

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 1997 | Docket: 460262

Cited 2 times | Published

inconsistent statement, pursuant to § 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. Section 90.614(2) provides, in pertinent part:

Barber v. State

576 So. 2d 825, 1991 WL 35439

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1991 | Docket: 1669936

Cited 2 times | Published

establish the essential predicate required by section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1987), by first confronting

State v. Hill

504 So. 2d 407

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 1987 | Docket: 453585

Cited 2 times | Published

it would be impossible to comply with the Section 90.614 requirement that before extrinsic evidence

Dominique Wright v. State of Florida

199 So. 3d 1019, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9986, 2016 WL 3539149

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 29, 2016 | Docket: 3088371

Cited 1 times | Published

deposition as inconsistent statements. See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“Extrinsic evidence of

Ramsammy v. State

43 So. 3d 100, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11750, 2010 WL 3194460

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 2010 | Docket: 60295385

Cited 1 times | Published

of his hearsay statements as required under section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. Before extrinsic evidence

Thomas v. State

981 So. 2d 1254, 2008 WL 2152915

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 20, 2008 | Docket: 1166091

Cited 1 times | Published

Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). ORFINGER, TORPY and COHEN

D.M.L. v. State

976 So. 2d 670, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 3868

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2008 | Docket: 64854100

Cited 1 times | Published

extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. § 90.614(2). “Prior to questioning a witness about the

Mills v. State

681 So. 2d 878, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11083, 1996 WL 603639

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 1996 | Docket: 64768473

Cited 1 times | Published

such prior inconsistent statements is found at section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1993). Notwithstanding these

Pugh v. State

637 So. 2d 313, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4938, 1994 WL 201400

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 1994 | Docket: 64748517

Cited 1 times | Published

prosecution witness, on critical testimony. We agree. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1991), provides: Extrinsic

JUSTIN J. HAWN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 2020 | Docket: 17370648

Published

person to whom the statement was allegedly made. § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2018); Pearce, 880 So. 2d. at

JEFFREY A HELMS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

271 So. 3d 1030

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 15, 2019 | Docket: 15566690

Published

denied giving it to the detective, pursuant to section 90.614, Florida Statutes (2017), the detective could

Dominique Wright v. State

143 So. 3d 995, 2014 WL 3605605, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11175

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2014 | Docket: 2303

Published

deposition as inconsistent statements. See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“Extrinsic evidence of

Louis v. State

104 So. 3d 1126, 2012 WL 5870078, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20225

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2012 | Docket: 60227296

Published

id. (citing § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2008)) (explaining the requirement in section 90.614(2) that the

K.P. v. State

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

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2012 | Docket: 60309680

Published

opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement.” § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). Without the ability to

Rodriguez v. State

65 So. 3d 1133, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11007, 2011 WL 2694428

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2011 | Docket: 60301630

Published

inconsistent statement within the meaning of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2009), so that extrinsic

Thomas v. State

981 So. 2d 1254, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 7569

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 20, 2008 | Docket: 64854877

Published

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). ORFINGER, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.

E.P.W. v. State

902 So. 2d 336, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8048, 2005 WL 1250244

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 27, 2005 | Docket: 64838426

Published

admitted the statement into evidence under section 90.614(1), Florida Statutes: (1) When a witness is

Pender v. State

847 So. 2d 1141, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9379, 2003 WL 21459566

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 2003 | Docket: 64823474

Published

court’s evidentiary ruling was consistent with section 90.614, Florida Statutes (2002); see also Charles

Gutierrez v. State

778 So. 2d 372, 2001 WL 37679

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 2001 | Docket: 1290434

Published

NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1997).

J.F. v. State

695 So. 2d 1316, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7555, 1997 WL 362840

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1997 | Docket: 64774569

Published

been admitted as impeachment evidence under section 90.614. Without regard to the basis for its admission

Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Watkins

675 So. 2d 1051, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7034, 1996 WL 368747

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1996 | Docket: 64765554

Published

See § 90.608, Fla. Stat. (1995). Moreover, section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1995) specifically allows

Dietrich v. State

673 So. 2d 93, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4400, 1996 WL 210827

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 1, 1996 | Docket: 64764499

Published

admissible. Allowing the evidence in also violated section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1993), prohibiting admission

Rego v. Shephard

596 So. 2d 1300, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5138, 1992 WL 91384

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1992 | Docket: 64666691

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 90.614, Fla.Stat. (1991).

Fernandez-Carballo v. State

590 So. 2d 1004, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12259, 1991 WL 259230

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 1991 | Docket: 64663938

Published

State, 427 So.2d 326, 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). (2) Moreover, the defendant

Annis v. First Union National Bank of Florida

566 So. 2d 273, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4879, 1990 WL 95336

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 1990 | Docket: 64652701

Published

rebuttal, absent the foundation required by Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: (2) Extrinsic

Snodderly v. State

528 So. 2d 982, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1723, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3291, 1988 WL 75574

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 1988 | Docket: 64636148

Published

been asked if she had made such statements. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. There was sufficient

Cobas-Torres v. State

502 So. 2d 67, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 478, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6705

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 1987 | Docket: 64624886

Published

inconsistent statement made by a prosecution witness, § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1983), we deem the error harmless

Saucier v. State

491 So. 2d 1282, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1663, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9139

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 1986 | Docket: 64620840

Published

out-of-court statements to Deputy Kahl, as required by section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1983).1 Not once during

Reaves v. State

458 So. 2d 53, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2255, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15839

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 1984 | Docket: 64607666

Published

statutory prerequisite for such impeachment. Section 90.614(2); Florida Statutes (1981), requires that

Wright v. State

427 So. 2d 326

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 1, 1983 | Docket: 1478297

Published

statement's introduction, in direct contravention of Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1979)." The appeal on this

Studstill v. State

394 So. 2d 1040, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18703

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 1981 | Docket: 64580806

Published

13(1) and 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979). . Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1979), which codifies prior