90.615
Calling witnesses by the court.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.615 Calling witnesses by the court.—
(1) The court may call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine.
(2) When required by the interests of justice, the court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by the court or by a party.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Shere v. State
Shere v. State (1991)
“In Shere's final evidentiary claim, he contends that the trial court erred by calling Greulich to testify as a court witness pursuant to section 90.615(1) of the Florida Statutes (1987).”
Wasko v. State (1987)
“§ 90.615, Fla. Stat. (1985). Calling such a court witness, however, rests within the trial court's discretion.”
Jackson v. State (1986)
“NOTES [1] In 1976, this general rule permitting court witnesses was codified and can now be found in the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.615, Florida Statutes, to wit: 90.”
R.W. v. Department of Children & Families (2016)
“” § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. (2015). Such questioning may be appropriate, in the court’s discretion, to seek clarification of an issue and in an effort to ascertain the truth.”
Sparks v. State (1999)
“See § 90.615, Fla. Stat. (1997). Likewise, the trial judge has a duty to correct a fundamental error at trial even in the absence of an objection.”
Amend. to Fl. Family Law Rules of Proc. (1998)
“Additionally, section 90.615(1), Florida Statutes, allows the court to call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine.”
State v. Smith (1990)
“Section 90.615 of the Florida Statutes (1985) provides a trial court the discretion to call a court witness when necessary to serve the interests of justice.”
Ritter v. Jimenez (1977)
“Section 90.615 thereof, entitled "Calling witnesses by the court," provides: "(1) The court may call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine.”
Austin v. State (1984)
“Under the circumstances of this case, it was impermissible to use the expedient of calling Mincey as a court witness under Section 90.615 for the purpose of eliciting his prior inconsistent statement either for impeachment purposes or as substantive evidence.”
E.T., THE MOTHER v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES (2019)
“” § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. “Such questioning may be appropriate, in the court’s discretion, to seek clarification of an issue and in an effort to ascertain the truth.”
Vivian v. Schembari (2007)
“See § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). The court's questions pertained to considerations required by section 61.”
Williams v. State (1984)
“Section 90.615(1), Florida Statutes (1981).”
— 90.615(1) — 6 cases
Shere v. State (1991)
“In Shere's final evidentiary claim, he contends that the trial court erred by calling Greulich to testify as a court witness pursuant to section 90.615(1) of the Florida Statutes (1987).”
Amend. to Fl. Family Law Rules of Proc. (1998)
“Additionally, section 90.615(1), Florida Statutes, allows the court to call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine.”
Williams v. State (1984)
“Section 90.615(1), Florida Statutes (1981).”
Wolcoff v. State (1991)
— 90.615(2) — 13 cases
R.W. v. Department of Children & Families (2016)
“” § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. (2015). Such questioning may be appropriate, in the court’s discretion, to seek clarification of an issue and in an effort to ascertain the truth.”
Shere v. State (1991)
“In Shere's final evidentiary claim, he contends that the trial court erred by calling Greulich to testify as a court witness pursuant to section 90.615(1) of the Florida Statutes (1987).”
E.T., THE MOTHER v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES (2019)
“” § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. “Such questioning may be appropriate, in the court’s discretion, to seek clarification of an issue and in an effort to ascertain the truth.”
Vivian v. Schembari (2007)
“See § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). The court's questions pertained to considerations required by section 61.”
R.O. v. State (2010)
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.