Cases from cite.case.law:

GONZALEZ, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 766 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .

LAWRENCE, v. STATE, 274 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017). . . . [o]ne of identification of a person made after perceiving the person." § 90.801(2)(c). . . . the interviewing investigators was not hearsay but fell under the identification exception of section 90.801 . . .

A. ELLISON, v. STATE, 271 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Section 90.801(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2016), states: "A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies . . . out-of-court identification, unlike that of the other two eyewitnesses, would not be admissible under section 90.801 . . . As noted above, section 90.801(2)(c) provides a hearsay exception for statements of identification. . . . "Florida courts have limited the scope of section 90.801(2)(c) to exclude statements containing descriptions . . . officer's testimony recounted, do not qualify as non-hearsay 'statements of identification' under section 90.801 . . .

A. HELMS, v. STATE, 271 So. 3d 1030 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 90.801(2)(a), Fla. . . . substantive evidence, because it was not given under oath at another proceeding, as required by section 90.801 . . .

L. BOGGESS, v. STATE, 269 So. 3d 616 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016) (emphasis added); see also Chandler v. . . . See § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. GLOGER,, 273 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .

MENDEZ, v. STATE, 271 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . child hearsay exception, section 90.803(23), and not as prior inconsistent statements under section 90.801 . . . Moore ... applies regardless of whether the prior inconsistent statement is admitted under section 90.801 . . .

HENRY, v. STATE, 264 So. 3d 182 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Section 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2014), defines "hearsay" as "a statement, other than one made . . . The express language of the section 90.801 definition of hearsay controls over practical considerations . . .

MERCK, Jr. v. STATE, 260 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 2018)

. . . State , 609 So.2d 493, 500 (Fla. 1992) ); § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .

E. NOACK, v. STATE, 260 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. . . .

KING, v. STATE, 260 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 90.801, Fla. Stat. . . . See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .

HINCK, v. STATE, 260 So. 3d 325 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2017), defines "hearsay" as "a statement, other than one made . . .

ANDRES, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

ROE, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 612 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. . . .

E. EVANS, v. STATE, 248 So. 3d 155 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Moreover, it appears that the 911 call could have been admissible as non-hearsay under section 90.801 . . .

KHAN, v. STATE, 243 So. 3d 506 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015) ; Keen v. . . .

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 238 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2018)

. . . evidence and not merely as impeachment, e.g., prior testimony at a trial, hearing or other proceeding ( § 90.801 . . .

J. J. J. v. STATE, 235 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . State, 775 So.2d 263, 274 (Fla. 2000) (first citing § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. . . .

ANDERSON, v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. . . .

ROOP, DOC v. STATE, 228 So. 3d 633 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Pursuant to section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2014), such a statement may constitute admissible . . . Yeater’s recorded statement—is generally inadmissible hearsay, see §§ 90.801(1)(c), 802, and thus cannot . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. R. J. v. POLLARI,, 228 So. 3d 115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.801(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . statements by several declarants who did not testify at trial, and were offered to prove their truth. § 90.801 . . .

STATE v. B. BOUGHS,, 220 So. 3d 1280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See §§ 90.801-.803, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . See §§ 90.801-.802, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .

REID, v. STATE, 222 So. 3d 575 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . The State responds that this evidence was admissible as a statement of identification under Section 90.801 . . . Section 90.801(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), states in pertinent part: A statement is not hearsay if . . . Based on the foregoing, we hold that Section 90.801(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), applies to out-of-court . . .

BYRD, v. STATE, 221 So. 3d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. . . .

NORTH, v. STATE, 221 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013) (emphasis added). . . .

PASHA, v. STATE, 225 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

MORRIS, v. STATE, 219 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 2017)

. . . State, 702 So.2d 186, 197-98 (Fla. 1997) (quoting § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989)). . . .

W. TUNDIDOR, v. STATE, 221 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. . . . Tundidor’s inference that Junior had-an improper motive, Detective Kendall’s testimony fell within section 90.801 . . . State, 609 So.2d 493, 500 (Fla. 1992) (holding that section 90.801(2)(b) applied when “[djefense counsel . . .

CASTILLO, v. STATE, 217 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Under section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), prior inconsistent statements can be admitted as . . . oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition.” § 90.801 . . . given at an ‘other proceeding1 and consequently is not admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.801 . . .

CARTER, v. STATE, 226 So. 3d 268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Larzelere, 676 So.2d at 402 (quoting § 90.801(1)). . . . In asserting that the plain language of section 90.801 and fairness required the contemporaneous introduction . . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

C. GAYLE, v. STATE, 216 So. 3d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . This was clearly “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying.” § 90.801(l)(c) . . . For hearsay purposes, a “statement” is “[a]n oral or written assertion” made by a “declarant.” § 90.801 . . . A “declarant” is “a person who makes a statement.” § 90.801(l)(b), Fla. Stat, (2015). . . .

R. WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 215 So. 3d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

LIVINGSTON, v. STATE, 219 So. 3d 911 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . wjhile the victim’s description of his assailant is not an ‘identification’ under Florida Statute - 90.801 . . . out-of-court description of the assailant was not admissible as statements of identification under section 90.801 . . .

WASHBURN, v. Y. WASHBURN,, 211 So. 3d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.801, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .

FONSECA v. TAVERNA IMPORTS, INC., 212 So. 3d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. . . .

ALVAREZ- MEJIA, v. BELLISSIMO PROPERTIES, LLC LLC,, 208 So. 3d 797 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . than one made by the declarant ... offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted,” § 90.801 . . .

GUDMESTAD, v. STATE, 209 So. 3d 602 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. . . .

ROLLE, v. STATE, 215 So. 3d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Although both Senobi’s and Agenor’s statements qualify as hearsay under section 90.801, Florida Statutes . . .

CHANNELL, v. STATE, 200 So. 3d 247 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . was in the location away from his residence as reflected in the GPS data. 43 So.3d at 886; see also § 90.801 . . .

J. C. O. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 199 So. 3d 429 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.801(c), Fla. . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 199 So. 3d 433 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. . . . officer's testimony recounted, do not qualify as non-hearsay “statements of identification” under section 90.801 . . . An ‘identification of a person [made] after perceiving [the person],’ [under] subsection 90.801(2)(c) . . . State, 820 So.2d 359, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (where section 90.801(2)(c) did not authorize the admission . . .

H. ADAMS, Jr. v. STATE, 195 So. 3d 424 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

R. LAING, v. STATE, 200 So. 3d 166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .

J. L. a v. STATE, 193 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . person made after perceiving the person,” which is excluded from the definition of hearsay under section 90.801 . . .

LEONARD, DOC v. STATE, 192 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. . . .

KASETA, v. STATE, 192 So. 3d 697 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. . . . See § 90.801(2)(b); Howard v. State, 152 So.3d 825, 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). . . . might have been admissible to rebut an 'express or implied charge of recent fabrication under section 90.801 . . .

De RIOS, v. STATE, 193 So. 3d 111 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 90.801(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), defines' hearsay as “a statement, other than one made . . .

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, v. ALAQUA PROPERTY,, 190 So. 3d 662 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

STATE v. R. QUEIOR,, 191 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2016)

. . . (explaining that “hearsay,” as defined in section 90.801(l)(c), Florida Statutes, is an out-of-court . . .

LEAPHART, v. JAMES,, 185 So. 3d 683 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See §§ 90.801, .802, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

IBAR, v. STATE v. L., 190 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 2016)

. . . whether certain out-of-court statements were "statements of identification” as contemplated by section 90.801 . . .

RICHARDSON, v. STATE, 182 So. 3d 918 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.801, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

A. J. M. a v. STATE, 182 So. 3d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .”- § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . .” § 90.801(l)(b). . . .

MOOTRY, As v. BETHUNE- COOKMAN UNIVERSITY, INC., 186 So. 3d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 90.801, Florida Statutes (2013), defines “hearsay” as “a statement, other than one made by the . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 186 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.801(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

McLAWHORN, Jr. v. STATE, 183 So. 3d 1166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 90.801, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

JENKINS, v. STATE, 189 So. 3d 866 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

JONES, v. STATE, 189 So. 3d 853 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . deposition given by a victim who recanted at trial was not admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.801 . . .

TURNER, v. STATE, 179 So. 3d 526 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 90.801(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, v. FRIAS a k a A. a k a A., 178 So. 3d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . .” § 90.801, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

L. BELL, Jr. v. STATE, 179 So. 3d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. . . . See § 90.801(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

DAVIDIAN v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, FDIC FA,, 178 So. 3d 45 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . .” § 90.801(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court properly rejected this , challenge. . . .

CANNON, v. STATE, 180 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 2015)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

ROSARIO, v. STATE, 175 So. 3d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . .” § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013); see Fed. R.Evid. 801(c). . . .

WYNE, v. STATE, 189 So. 3d 840 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . We conclude, as did the trial court, that the statement was proper pursuant to section 90.801(2), Florida . . .

SUMMERALL, v. STATE, 171 So. 3d 150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . argument that the testimony concerning Mary Sum-merall’s calls constituted hearsay as defined in section 90.801 . . .

ALLEN, v. STATE, 162 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . State, 977 So.2d 770, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (quoting § 90.801(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2006)). . . .

S. HOLT, v. CALCHAS, LLC,, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

KORMONDY, v. STATE, 154 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 2015)

. . . See § 90.801(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014); see also Wyatt v. . . .

HOWARD, v. STATE, 152 So. 3d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

R. McDADE, v. STATE, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014)

. . . State, 926 So.2d 1118, 1131-32 (Fla.2006), the Court explained that: Hearsay is defined in section 90.801 . . .

WADE, v. STATE, 156 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 2014)

. . . (quoting § 90.801(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000))). . . .

S. LACOMBE P. v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,, 149 So. 3d 152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See §§ 90.801, 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. . . .

SHEPPARD, Jr. v. STATE, 151 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2014)

. . . See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. . . . .” § 90.801(c), Florida Statutes (2013). . . .

TAYLOR, v. STATE, 146 So. 3d 113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.801(D(c), Fla. Stat. (2013). Hearsay is inadmissible unless an exception applies. . . . offered for the truth of the matter asserted can be considered non-hearsay only if it falls under section 90.801 . . . improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication; or (3) is offered as identification of a person. § 90.801 . . .

R. CAYEA, Jr. a k a R. J. a k a v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 138 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.801 (l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

ANTOINE, v. STATE, 138 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. ■ Stat. (2009). . . .

A. CALDWELL, Sr. v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 590 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

B. HUNTER, Jr. v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, B. Jr. If s s, 137 So. 3d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See §§ 90.801(1)(c), 90.802, 90.803, 90.804, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

DAVIS, v. STATE v. D., 136 So. 3d 1169 (Fla. 2014)

. . . deposition could not have been used as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach Williams under section 90.801 . . .

J. B. a v. STATE, 166 So. 3d 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

CABALLERO, v. STATE, 132 So. 3d 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Id. at 1038 (citing, inter alia, § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. . . .

A. BROWNE, v. STATE, 132 So. 3d 312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . victim’s statement based on the application of the prior consistent statement rule, pursuant to section 90.801 . . . Under section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes, prior statements of a witness that are “[c]onsistent with . . . Additionally, “a prior consistent statement is inadmissible under section 90.801(2)(b) if it is made . . .

HARTONG v. BERNHART, M. D. P. A. P. A., 128 So. 3d 858 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.801( 1 )(c), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

JONES, v. STATE, 127 So. 3d 622 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . .” §§ 90.801(l)(a)l, 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

S. L. WADE, v. D. T. WADE,, 124 So. 3d 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 90.801 (l)(c), Fla. . . .

YANG v. SEBASTIAN LAKES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 123 So. 3d 617 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.801, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

CONSTANT, v. STATE, 120 So. 3d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . State, 107 So.3d 527, 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010)). . . . While a declarant’s out-of-court statement will generally fall within this blanket prohibition, section 90.801 . . . statement and the statement is: (e) One of identification of a person made after perceiving the person. § 90.801 . . . State, 581 So.2d 121, 124 (Fla.1991) (“Section 90.801(2)(c) excludes from the definition of hearsay out-of-court . . .

SHIBA, v. GABAY,, 120 So. 3d 80 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . “[S]ection 90.801(2)(b) contemplates an initial attempt on cross-examination to show ... recent fabrication . . .

A. ALLEN, v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 2013)

. . . See § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

L. BRILHART, v. BRILHART, S. L. B. a, 116 So. 3d 617 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012). Unsubstantiated statements by Mr. . . .

C. MERRONE, v. STATE, 116 So. 3d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . However, section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2011) provides: (2) A statement is not hearsay if the . . .

JEAN- PHILIPPE, v. STATE, 123 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . See § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

J. G. v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . See § 90.801(l)(a)(l). . . .

E. CARTER, v. STATE, 115 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . “Section 90.801(2)(b), [Florida Statutes (2010) ] provides that a statement is not hearsay if the declarant . . . Stated another way, a prior consistent statement is inadmissible under section 90.801(2)(b) if it is . . .

GOLDEN, v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Section 90.801(2)(c) deals with identification testimony. . . . State, 581 So.2d 121, 124 (Fla.1991), our supreme court determined that section 90.801(2)(c) requires . . . The defense objected that the evidence was inadmissible under section 90.801(2)(c), because the declarant . . . The Florida Supreme Court ruled that section 90.801(2)(c) allowed admission of statements of identification . . .

GOLDTRAP, v. STATE, 115 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . express or implied charge against the declarant of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication^]” § 90.801 . . . To be admissible under section 90.801(2)(b), “the [consistent] statement must have been made ‘prior to . . . “A prior consistent statement is not admissible under section 90.801(2)(b) ‘merely because the opposing . . . first text message to her boyfriend during a weekend stay with Appellant-was admissible under section 90.801 . . .

THOMAS, v. STATE, 125 So. 3d 928 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

L. TOLBERT, v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

STATE v. SIMS,, 110 So. 3d 113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Third, the statement plainly does not qualify as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a) of the . . . Neither Appellee nor his co-defendant requested a limiting instruction under section 90.801(2)(a), Florida . . .