Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.801 (2025)

Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.

✓ 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

90.801 Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.—

(1) The following definitions apply under this chapter:

(a) A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement.

(b) “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

1. An oral or written assertion; or

2. Nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the person as an assertion.

(2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is:

(a) Inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;

(b) Consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication; or

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 19, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379; s. 2, ch. 81-93; s. 497, ch. 95-147; s. 21, ch. 2023-8.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 615 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 36× “801(2)(c), it was admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a). Section 90.801(2)(a) provides that an out-of-court statement is not hearsay if the declarant, in this case Milman, testifies at the trial and is subject to cross-examination about the statement.”

Puryear v. State, 810 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002). · cites it 27× “[4] Section 90.801(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: (2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is: .”

Smith v. State, 880 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). · cites it 37× “Section 90.801 provides, in pertinent part: (2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is: .”

Randy W. Tundidor v. State of Florida, 221 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 2017). · cites it 10× “” § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Detective Kendall’s testimony regarding Junior’s April 29, 2010, statement.”

State v. Green, 667 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1995). · cites it 18× “As indicated above, the victim's deposition testimony was admitted under section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), which reads in part as follows: (2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination…”

Tumblin v. State, 29 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 2010). · cites it 16× “§ 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). In reviewing the trial court's decision to admit Mayes' prior consistent statement in this case, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.”

Ellis v. State, 622 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1993). · cites it 12× “§ 90.801(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (1989). Obviously, Feagle testified at trial, was subject to cross examination, and gave testimony inconsistent with an earlier statement.”

State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990). · cites it 8× “OVERTON, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with all parts of the opinion except that part holding that testimony given *319 to an assistant state attorney under oath before a court reporter was not admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.”

Carroll v. State, 497 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). · cites it 15× “See § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979). Section 90.”

Penalver v. State, 926 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 6× “The trial court overruled the defense's objection and allowed the testimony.”

Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 5× “" § 90.801(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added).”

Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, there is no dispute that the letter constituted a “statement” under section 90.801(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2004).”

Show all 615 citing cases →

— 90.801(1) — 13 cases

Deparvine v. State, 995 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2008).

Alvarez-Mejia v. Bellissimo Props., LLC, 208 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

In the Interest of L.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 947 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

David Davidian & Irma Davidian v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 178 So. 3d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Monday v. State, 792 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

— 90.801(1)(2) — 1 case

Vazquez v. State, 8 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

— 90.801(1)(a) — 9 cases

Philip Morris USA Inc., & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Rose Pollari, Etc, 228 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Ellis v. State, 622 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1993). “§ 90.801(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (1989). Obviously, Feagle testified at trial, was subject to cross examination, and gave testimony inconsistent with an earlier statement.”

Hulsh v. Hulsh, 431 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Evans v. State, 808 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2001).

Bowe v. State, 785 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

— 90.801(1)(a)(1) — 2 cases

Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008). “Furthermore, there is no dispute that the letter constituted a “statement” under section 90.801(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2004).”

Yisrael v. State, 986 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2008).

— 90.801(1)(a)(2) — 1 case

Nelson v. State, 602 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

— 90.801(1)(b) — 12 cases

Alan Lyndell Wade v. State of Florida, 156 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 2014).

Bell v. State, 179 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Bowe v. State, 785 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Trina Turner v. State of Florida, 179 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

— 90.801(1)(c) — 177 cases

Reynolds v. State, 934 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 2006).

State v. Baird, 572 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1990).

Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2005).

Penalver v. State, 926 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2006). “The trial court overruled the defense's objection and allowed the testimony.”

— 90.801(1)(e) — 4 cases

Philip Morris USA Inc., & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Rose Pollari, Etc, 228 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Ronald Smith v. State of Florida, 186 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Allen v. State, 162 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

T.S. v. State, 623 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

— 90.801(2) — 40 cases

Puryear v. State, 810 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002). “[4] Section 90.801(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: (2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is: .”

State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990). “OVERTON, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with all parts of the opinion except that part holding that testimony given *319 to an assistant state attorney under oath before a court reporter was not admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.”

Taylor v. State, 146 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

Williams v. State, 714 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

— 90.801(2)(1) — 1 case

Woodall v. State, 39 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

— 90.801(2)(C) — 1 case

Stanford v. State, 576 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

— 90.801(2)(a) — 80 cases

State v. Green, 667 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1995). “As indicated above, the victim's deposition testimony was admitted under section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), which reads in part as follows: (2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination…”

Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004). “" § 90.801(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added).”

Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). “801(2)(c), it was admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a). Section 90.801(2)(a) provides that an out-of-court statement is not hearsay if the declarant, in this case Milman, testifies at the trial and is subject to cross-examination about the statement.”

Moore v. State, 452 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1984).

— 90.801(2)(b) — 115 cases

Randy W. Tundidor v. State of Florida, 221 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 2017). “” § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Detective Kendall’s testimony regarding Junior’s April 29, 2010, statement.”

Tumblin v. State, 29 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 2010). “§ 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). In reviewing the trial court's decision to admit Mayes' prior consistent statement in this case, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.”

Carroll v. State, 497 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “See § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979). Section 90.”

Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002).

Dontae Morris v. State of Florida, 219 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 2017).

— 90.801(2)(c) — 69 cases

Smith v. State, 880 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). “Section 90.801 provides, in pertinent part: (2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is: .”

Puryear v. State, 774 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Polite v. State, 41 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

— 90.801(2)(e) — 1 case

Weinstein v. LPI-The Shoppes, Inc., 482 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

— 90.801(b) — 2 cases

Eloyn Ingraham v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).

S. T. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, Statewide (Fla. 2d DCA 2026).

— 90.801(c) — 8 cases

Arce v. Wackenhut Corp., 40 So. 3d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Billy Jim Sheppard, Jr. v. State of Florida, 151 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2014).

Butler v. State, 970 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Dept. v. Unemp. App. Com'n, 478 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Acosta v. State, 825 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

— 90.801(l)(a) — 5 cases

Gayle v. State, 216 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Jones v. State, 127 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Walker v. State, 83 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Farinacci v. State, 29 So. 3d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Fletcher v. McEwen, 561 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

— 90.801(l)(a)(2) — 1 case

Pierre-charles v. State, 67 So. 3d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

— 90.801(l)(a)(l) — 1 case

J.G. v. State, 114 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

— 90.801(l)(b) — 2 cases

Gayle v. State, 216 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

A.J.M., a child v. State of Florida, 182 So. 3d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

— 90.801(l)(c) — 76 cases

Bacchus v. Bacchus, 108 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

State of Florida v. Kyle R. Queior, 191 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2016).

Richard R. Mcdade v. State of Florida, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014).

Eugene v. State, 53 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Peterson v. State, 94 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 2012).

— 90.801(l)(e) — 4 cases

Smith v. State, 7 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2009).

Johnny Shane Kormondy v. State of Florida, 154 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 2015).

Slicker v. State, 941 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Brown v. State, 707 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

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.