Cases from cite.case.law:

TOOLE, v. STATE, 270 So. 3d 371 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . For example, section 90.804, Florida Statutes, provides that hearsay evidence is admissible if the opposing . . . Stat. § 90.804(f) (2014). State v. Milo, 596 So.2d 722, 723 (Fla. Dist. Ct. . . .

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

. . . We cannot find Pugh "unavailable" due to lack of memory under section 90.804(1)(c), Florida Statutes, . . . Moreover, even had Pugh been unavailable, it does not appear any applicable exception under section 90.804 . . .

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

. . . ), provides that hearsay is inadmissible unless an exception exists under section 90.803 or section 90.804 . . .

MEDINA, v. STATE, 260 So. 3d 419 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . requisite predicate) should have been deemed admissible as statements against penal interest under section 90.804 . . . include a declarant who is "unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death," see § 90.804 . . . is the proponent of his or her statement in preventing the witness from attending or testifying." § 90.804 . . .

HOWARD, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Howard's other argument is that these statements are non-admissible hearsay, which don't qualify under § 90.804 . . .

GEORGE, v. STATE, 251 So. 3d 262 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Dying Declaration-Section 90.804(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes Although we have concluded that the statement . . . discretion by determining that the statement qualified as a dying declaration admissible under section 90.804 . . .

FRAZIER, v. STATE, 250 So. 3d 794 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . a substantial likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804 . . .

JOSEPH, v. STATE, 250 So. 3d 113 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . exceptions to the hearsay rule in Florida are the ones recognized by statutes such as sections 90.803, 90.804 . . . wrongfully causing, the declarant's unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result. § 90.804 . . . See § 90.804(2)(f), Fla. . . .

Fr. RONCHI, v. STATE, 248 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . a substantial likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804 . . .

MOSCATIELLO, v. STATE, 247 So. 3d 11 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Florida Rule of Evidence 90.804(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), permits the use of former testimony " . . . Therefore, the Arthur hearing satisfied the requirement of section 90.804(2)(a). . . . No such requirement is contained within section 90.804(2)(a), unlike section 90.804(2)(c), where the . . . These portions of the statements were inadmissible under section 90.804(2)(c) and Lilly [v. . . . It did not satisfy the requirements of section 90.804(2)(c) or the requirements of Brooks . . . .

STATE v. CRUMBLEY, v. Jo, 247 So. 3d 666 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See, e.g., § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. . . .

L. LARRY, v. STATE, 241 So. 3d 246 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Dely is not admissible as a hearsay exception for a declaration against penal interest under section 90.804 . . .

SOCHOR, v. STATE, 246 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 2018)

. . . State , 707 So.2d 688, 691 (Fla. 1998) ; § 90.804(2), Fla. Stat. . . .

PAYTON, v. STATE, 239 So. 3d 129 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . confession to the murders by John Bicknas as a statement against penal interest pursuant to section 90.804 . . . Section 90.804, Florida Statutes, sets forth hearsay exceptions that require a declarant's unavailability . . . fourth prong of the Dort test, as well as the trustworthiness requirement found in the text of section 90.804 . . . case, the State argues that Payton did not show whether Bicknas was "unavailable" pursuant to section 90.804 . . . whether Bicknas' statement to Byous carries the indicia of trustworthiness required by both section 90.804 . . .

BAEZ, v. STATE, 235 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

. . . Section 90.804(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), creates a hearsay exception for statements against interest . . .

PITTMAN, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 871 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 90.804(2)(c) (1989). The Florida rule thus largely tracks Chambers’s holding. . . .

T. KENNER, v. STATE, 208 So. 3d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 90.804(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

SPROUSE, v. STATE, 208 So. 3d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . The Legislature has defined “unavailability as a witness,” § 90.804(1), Fla. . . .

B. LAHENS, v. STATE, 204 So.3d 982 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . The post-conviction court summarily denied this claim, ruling that, under section 90.804, the testimony . . . See § 90.804, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

DAVIS, Jr. v. STATE, 207 So.3d 142 (Fla. 2016)

. . . See § 90.804(2)(b), Fla. Stat. . . .

DAVIS, Jr. v. STATE, 207 So.3d 177 (Fla. 2016)

. . . See § 90.804(2)(b), Fla. Stat. . . .

AGUIRRE- JARQUIN, v. STATE v. L., 202 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2016)

. . . See § 90.804(2), Fla. Stat. . . .

JOHNSON, v. OMEGA INSURANCE COMPANY,, 200 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016)

. . . sinkhole statutes do not apply to the litigation context, the trial court’s application of section 90.804 . . .

DIX, v. STATE, 196 So. 3d 547 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. . . . . • “Essentially, the test for admissibility of statements against interest under section 90.804(2)(c . . .

RIGTERINK, v. STATE, 193 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016)

. . . establish a foundation for William Farmer’s testimony to satisfy the requirements of sections 90.405 and 90.804 . . .

PADILLA, v. STATE, 189 So. 3d 986 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 90.804(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that a witness may be declared unavailable if . . .

GARDNER, v. STATE, 194 So. 3d 385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . should be' admissible on three separate, but overlapping,- grounds: as ■ prior testimony under section 90.804 . . . (2)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), as a statement against penal interest under section 90.804(2)(c), and . . .

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

. . . See § 90.804(2)(a), Fla. . . . therefore would object to any finding that the witness was unavailable within the meaning of section ‘90.804 . . .

BOLIN, Jr. v. STATE, 184 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 2015)

. . . specific and lacks the ‘particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,’ that seem to be required under § 90.804 . . . statements attributed to Easier are insufficiently corroborated to qualify as a hearsay exception under § 90.804 . . .

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

. . . 3.190(i) (“rule 3.190(i)”), but argues the deposition could have been properly admitted under section 90.804 . . . opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. § 90.804 . . . testimony of an unavailable witness as substantive, evidence pursuant to the hearsay exception in section 90.804 . . . presented with the question of whether a deposition is admissible as substantive evidence, under section 90.804 . . . .2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (discovery deposition that qualifies as a hearsay exception under section 90.804 . . .

D. DORT, v. STATE, 175 So. 3d 836 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . an exception to the hearsay rule for statements against a declarant’s penal interest, under section 90.804 . . . Section 90.804(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), provides an exception to the hearsay rule for a statement . . . Essentially, the test for admissibility of statements against interest under section 90.804(2)(c) is . . . “Section 90.804(2)(c) uses the term ‘statement’ in a narrow sense to refer to a specific declaration . . . Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 136-37, 119 S.Ct; 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 -(1999), and citing § 90.804(2)(c), Fla . . .

WYATT, v. STATE, 183 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . s testimony at the forfeiture hearing, as former testimony of an. unavailable witness under section 90.804 . . . He asserts that her testimony was admissible under section 90.804(2)(a), because the sheriffs office, . . . Section 90.804(2), Florida Statutes (2010) provides an exception to the hearsay rule, when the declarant . . . refused to testify, Garcia attempted to introduce the co-defendant’s trial testimony under section 90.804 . . . bond hearing was admissible at the defendant’s criminal trial, we explained: We do not read Section 90.804 . . .

HUNTER, v. STATE, 174 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in s. 90.803 or s. 90.804 . . .

BEARDEN, v. STATE, 161 So. 3d 1257 (Fla. 2015)

. . . The defendant relied on section 90.804(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), the declaration against penal . . . regarding the statement might have been the exception for a statement against penal interest under section 90.804 . . . However, section 90.804(2)(c) provides that hearsay that constitutes' a statement against penal interest . . . Thus, Tyler’s testimony would not have been admissible under section 90.804(2)(c). . . . have consistently applied the constitutional analysis in Chambers, despite the exception in section 90.804 . . .

BLAKE, v. STATE v. H., 180 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 2014)

. . . trial, Parker’s recitation of Green’s statement would be admissible as a statement against interest, § 90.804 . . . Under section 90.804(2)(c), in order to introduce a “statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal . . . statements, the State could respond by introducing Green’s 2002 grand jury testimony under section 90.804 . . .

MORTIMER, v. STATE, 162 So. 3d 67 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . In light of the Supreme Court’s adoption of section 90.804(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2012) “to the extent . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE, 144 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 2014)

. . . APPENDIX Chapter 2012-152, § 1: 90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable (1) [No Change] (2) . . . In chapter 2012-152, section 1, Laws of Florida, the Legislature amended section 90.804 to include the . . . See § 90.804(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . . Specifically, chapter 2012-152, section 1, which added a new hearsay exception to section 90.804(2), . . . With the adoption of the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine as narrowly set forth in section 90.804( . . .

STATE v. ROBERTS a k a, 174 So. 3d 374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . If the declarant is unavailable pursuant to section 90.804(1), section 90.804(2) provides certain exceptions . . . (l)(b) and 90.804(2)(a). . . . 90.804(2)(a). . . . (l)(b) and 90.804(2)(a). . . . under section 90.804(2)(a). . . .

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

. . . the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in s. 90.803 or s. 90.804 . . .

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). . . .

STATE v. DAVIS,, 133 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . hearsay” we mean hearsay that is not otherwise admissible as a hearsay exception under sections 90.803, 90.804 . . .

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

. . . exceptions to the hearsay rule in Florida are the ones recognized by statutes such as sections 90.803, 90.804 . . .

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

. . . Section 90.804(2)(c), states: Statement against interest. — A statement which, at the time of its making . . . accused is inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances show the trustworthiness of the statement. § 90.804 . . . See § 90.804, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . Section 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . was expressly limited to its facts, McWatters has failed to establish a due process violation.”); § 90.804 . . .

BOLIN, Jr. v. STATE, 117 So. 3d 728 (Fla. 2013)

. . . Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354; see § 90.804(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

RICH, H. v. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. R. T. Co., 103 So. 3d 903 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . The Riches objected to both depositions, arguing that section 90.804, Florida Statutes, requires that . . . The Legislative History of Section 90.804, Florida Statutes Prior to the enactment of section 90.804, . . . Osbum remained the law in Florida on this issue until the enactment of section 90.804(2)(a). . . . (2), Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) was enacted shortly before Florida amended section 90.804. . . . the former testimony offered against Rich was properly admitted under section 90.804(2)(a). . . .

MORTIMER, v. STATE, 100 So. 3d 99 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 90.804(2)(f) became effective in April, 2012. . . . If section 90.804(2)(f) is applied at a retrial, Joseph’s testimony from the earlier bond hearing would . . . Because section 90.804(2)© is a procedural statute, it would apply to a retrial if we were to reverse . . . For the purpose of article V, section 2(a), we conclude that section 90.804(2)(f) is a procedural statute . . . It is almost certain that our Supreme Court will adopt section 90.804(2)(f). . . .

STATE v. CROFOOT,, 97 So. 3d 866 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . when two elements are met: first, the threshold finding of the declarant’s unavailability, section 90.804 . . . Statutes (2011); and second, that the content of statement is against the declarant’s interest, section 90.804 . . . element must be met: “corroborating circumstances showing] the trustworthiness of the statement.” § 90.804 . . . declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true.” § 90.804 . . .

PETIT, v. STATE, 92 So. 3d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . considered “unavailable” for Confrontation Clause purposes if he fits into any of the categories in section 90.804 . . . Section 90.804, however, defines “unavailability” of the declarant for the purpose of the hearsay exceptions . . . Supreme Court has defined unavailability for Confrontation Clause purposes much more broadly than section 90.804 . . .

BENJAMIN, v. TANDEM HEALTHCARE, INC. a d b a a, 93 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See §§ 90.803, 90.804, Fla. Stat. (2009). One of these exceptions is at issue here. . . . the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in s. 90.803 or 90.804 . . .

MELEHAN, v. STATE, 126 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . trial judge allowed evidence of the deposition testimony to be presented to the jury, citing section 90.804 . . . initially deemed A.S.’s deposition testimony to be admissible as former testimony as allowed by section 90.804 . . . substantive evidence absent compliance with Rule 3.190© was in no way modified by the adoption of section 90.804 . . . perpetuating testimony before a deposition is admissible as substantive evidence is recognized in section 90.804 . . . Section 90.804(2)(a), Florida Statutes provides: HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS. — The following are not excluded . . .

BANK OF MONTREAL N. A. v. ESTATE OF ANTOINE, C., 86 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 90.804(2)(a), Fla. Stat. . . .

PARTIN, v. STATE, 82 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2011)

. . . See § 90.804(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . . is the proponent of his or her statement in preventing the witness from attending or testifying.” § 90.804 . . . Furthermore, because the trial court determined that Ulery was unavailable under section 90.804 and that . . . And even if the trial court erred in finding that Ulery was “unavailable” under section 90.804(l)(d), . . .

PAYNE, v. STATE, 74 So. 3d 550 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . He reasoned that the testimony was not sufficiently corroborated, as required by section 90.804(2)(c) . . .

ROLON, v. STATE, 72 So. 3d 238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Rolon conceded that section 90.804(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), would generally permit the State to . . .

LESTER, Jr. v. STATE, 76 So. 3d 952 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 90.804(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), provides an exception to the hearsay rule for “a statement . . . State, 24 So.3d 17 (Fla.2009), the supreme court held: Pursuant to section 90.804(2)(b), Florida Statutes . . .

HENDRIX, v. STATE, 82 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . other evidence and thus lacked the indicia of trustworthiness necessary to be admissible under section 90.804 . . .

BROWN, v. STATE, 69 So. 3d 316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Appellant next argues that Miller’s statements were not admissible under section 90.804(2)(c), Florida . . . investigator prior to his arrest under the hearsay exception “statement against interest” pursuant to section 90.804 . . . failed to make the proper objections to the admission of the statements under Crawford or sections 90.804 . . . Crawford violation occurred and that trial counsel’s objections properly preserved Appellant’s section 90.804 . . . Furthermore, because we conclude that the trial court properly admitted the statements under section 90.804 . . .

MERRITT, v. STATE, 68 So. 3d 936 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Charles could, under the proper predicate, qualify as statements against penal interest, under section 90.804 . . . The test for admissibility under 90.804(2)(c) is 1) whether the declarant is unavailable, and if so, . . . Section 90.804(1) defines "unavailability as a witness” to include situations in which the declarant . . .

WYATT, v. STATE v. G., 71 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 2011)

. . . because it was inadmissible hearsay and Bravo was never declared to be "unavailable” under section 90.804 . . .

RIGTERINK, v. STATE, 66 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 2011)

. . . that was not sufficiently corroborated to satisfy the applicable admissibility predicate under section 90.804 . . . Section 90.804(2)(c) reads as follows: A statement which, at the time of its making, was so far contrary . . .

CORONA, v. STATE, 64 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2011)

. . . Corona, 929 So.2d at 594 (quoting § 90.804(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2001)). . . . .” § 90.804(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .

DEWOLFE, v. STATE, 62 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Conceding the confession was hearsay, appellant relies, here as below, on section 90.804(2)(c), the declaration-against-penal-interest . . . accused is inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances show the trustworthiness of the statement. § 90.804 . . . But the trial court ruled the hearsay statements did not meet the criteria of section 90.804(2)(c), in . . .

BEARDEN, v. STATE, 62 So. 3d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . .; see § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . .

ROUSSONICOLOS, v. STATE, 59 So. 3d 238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 90.804(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007) provides that so long as the declarant is unavailable to . . . We do not read Section 90.804(2)(a) to require that, in order for prior testimony to be admitted as an . . . There appear to be no Florida cases addressing the applicability of section 90.804(2)(a) where the prior . . . we hold that the trial court erred in concluding that Limato’s testimony did not fall within section 90.804 . . .

NAYLOR, v. STATE, 51 So. 3d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. . . .

CARDENAS, Jr. v. STATE, 49 So. 3d 322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 90.804(2)(b), Florida ’ Statutes, provides an exception to the hearsay rule for “a statement . . .

ALVARADO, v. STATE, 46 So. 3d 631 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. . . .

J. WILSON, v. STATE, 45 So. 3d 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . discretion in ruling that appellant failed to establish the unavailability of a witness under section 90.804 . . . Wilson argues that the trial judge erred in excluding Culligan’s former testimony under section 90.804 . . . All of the hearsay exceptions contained in section 90.804(2) require that the declarant be “unavailable . . . (l)(e), which provides, in pertinent part: 90.804. . . . that considered the meaning of the “unavailability of a witness” within the context of the section 90.804 . . .

GERALDS, v. STATE v. A., 111 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 2010)

. . . By qualifying as former testimony under section 90.804(2)(a), Danford’s and Ward’s testimony is not vulnerable . . . opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. § 90.804 . . .

L. JONES, v. STATE, 36 So. 3d 903 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 90.804(2)(b) (2009). . . .

CHAVEZ, v. STATE, 25 So. 3d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The only relevant provision in Florida’s Evidence Code states in section 90.804(1), Florida Statutes, . . .

T. O. E. R. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 21 So. 3d 173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The court referenced section 90.804(l)(c), Florida Statutes, which states that a witness is unavailable . . . Similarly in this case, E.O. was unavailable under section 90.804(l)(b), Florida Statutes, which states . . .

HAYWARD, v. STATE, 24 So. 3d 17 (Fla. 2009)

. . . Pursuant to section 90.804(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), and this Court’s prior rulings, the deceased . . .

MAREK, v. STATE, 14 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 2009)

. . . statements would be admissible in the guilt phase as a statement against interest pursuant to section 90.804 . . . Section 90.804(2)(c) provides that where the declarant is unavailable as a witness, there is a hearsay . . . declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true.” § 90.804 . . .

MASAKA, v. STATE, 4 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Specifically, section 90.804(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), provides, (c) Statement against interest . . . that Panzo was the shooter, it satisfied the relevance requirement for admissibility under section 90.804 . . . implicitly agreed, that the statements were sufficiently incriminating to be admitted under section 90.804 . . . Thus, these statements met the “self-inculpatory” requirement for admission under section 90.804(2)(e . . . Panzo’s statement was based on its erroneous view of the requirements for admissibility under section 90.804 . . .

MUEHLEMAN, v. STATE, 3 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 2009)

. . . Section 90.804(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), similarly provided that former testimony may be received . . . not demonstrated that the procedure followed by the trial court violated the provisions of section 90.804 . . .

THOMAS, v. STATE, 993 So. 2d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in s. 90.803 or s. 90.804 . . .

CARDENAS, v. STATE, 993 So. 2d 546 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . the admission of these statements as statements under belief of impending death pursuant to section 90.804 . . .

GOSCIMINSKI, v. STATE, 994 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2008)

. . . See §§ 90.803(l)-(24), 90.804(2), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also Stoll v. . . .

HENYARD, v. STATE v. v. A., 992 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2008)

. . . Section 90.804(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), modified the ruling in Baker by requiring outside corroborating . . .

STATE v. VILLARREAL,, 990 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . if she “is required to testify in open court,” or that Andrea is unavailable, as defined by section 90.804 . . . is required to testify in open court, or that such victim or witness is unavailable as defined in s. 90.804 . . . contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the minor children are not unavailable as defined by section 90.804 . . . Section 90.804(1) provides: (1) DEFINITION OF UNAVAILABILITY. — “Unavailability as a witness” means that . . . It is interesting to note that the definition of "unavailability” in section 90.804(1) is similar to . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 995 So. 2d 532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . unavailable for trial, his preliminary hearing testimony was admissible as former testimony under section 90.804 . . .

ANTUNES- SALGADO, v. STATE, 987 So. 2d 222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Second, the statements are not admissible under section 90.804(2)(c) as statements against interest. . . . Section 90.804(2)(c) permits the admission of statements which are “so far contrary to the declarant’ . . . 594, 600-01, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994) (holding that the federal counterpart to section 90.804 . . . These portions of the statements were inadmissible under section 90.804(2)(c) and Lilly and Williamson . . .

W. DAVIS, v. STATE, 990 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2008)

. . . counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce Valessa Robinson’s statement at trial under section 90.804 . . . have admitted Valessa’s statement because Traína did not have the corroborating evidence that section 90.804 . . . See § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. . . . information to have Valessa Robinson’s statement admitted into evidence, which Florida Statutes Section 90.804 . . .

HITCHCOCK, v. STATE E. v. A., 991 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2008)

. . . of corroborating circumstances showing the trustworthiness of the statements as required by section 90.804 . . . whether the trial judge erred in his consideration of the admissibility of the evidence under section 90.804 . . . Assuming without deciding that the newly discovered evidence would be admissible pursuant to section 90.804 . . .

PEREZ, v. STATE, 980 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . unreliable, made under circumstances that would render them untrustworthy in contravention of section 90.804 . . . See § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

L. BLANTON, v. STATE, 978 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2008)

. . . a substantial likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804 . . .

STATE v. CONTRERAS,, 979 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2008)

. . . Section 90.804(l)(d), Florida Statutes (2007), defines unavailability as including a declarant who is . . . a substantial likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804 . . . Section 90.804(1) provides five ways in which a declarant may be unavailable as a witness, including . . .

C. LEIGHTY, v. STATE, 981 So. 2d 484 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . State, 816 So.2d 554, 565 (Fla.2002) (saying that § 90.804(2)(a) may not be applied “mechanistically . . . I see no problem in meeting the requirements of section 90.804(2)(a). . . . not admissible at trial as substantive evidence, despite the exception for hearsay allowed by section 90.804 . . . Chambers in the context of Florida’s hearsay exception for statements against interest under section 90.804 . . . would not allow it because it did not qualify as an admission against penal interest under section 90.804 . . . Garcia argued to the trial court that Par-do’s former sworn testimony was admissible under section 90.804 . . . opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.” § 90.804 . . .

MORDENTI, v. STATE, 982 So. 2d 710 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 90.804(2)(c). The other two statements would be admissible as impeachment testimony. . . .

MITCHELL, Sr. v. STATE, 965 So. 2d 246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 90.804(2)(b) establishes a “dying declaration” exception to the general rule excluding hearsay . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE, 960 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2007)

. . . In its stead, the Legislature created section 90.804(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2005), which added an exception . . . either managing his or — her property-or-earing for himself-or-herself,- or-both; Chapter 2005-46, § 2: 90.804 . . . The hearsay exception created by section 90.804(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2005), applies "[i]n an action . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 969 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2007)

. . . .” § 90.804(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2006). . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 967 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2007)

. . . .” § 90.804(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

M. DAILEY, v. STATE v. R., 965 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2007)

. . . Id. at 57 (quoting § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1991)). . . .

PRESTON, Jr. v. STATE Jr. v. R., 970 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2007)

. . . known at trial, it could have been used to impeach Scott Preston and perhaps introduced under section 90.804 . . .

WILLIAMSON, v. STATE, 961 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2007)

. . . meet any of the criteria for admission of a prior statement by an unavailable witness under section 90.804 . . . decision to exclude contents of an affidavit by a deceased victim that were not admissible under section 90.804 . . .

ESSEX, v. STATE, 958 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . On appeal, Essex attacks the admissibility of the former testimony, arguing that under section 90.804 . . . Section 90.804(1) defines the concept of “[u]navailability of a witness.” . . . A finding that a witness is unavailable within the meaning of section 90.804(1) satisfies the unavailability . . . State, 929 So.2d 588, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (applying section 90.804(l)(e) to decide whether a witness . . . Under section 90.804(1), one of the ways that a witness is unavailable is if she “is absent from the . . .

STATE v. HOSTY, v., 944 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2006)

. . . of severe emotional, mental, or physical harm” that can make a declarant unavailable under section 90.804 . . . substantial likelihood of severe emotional, mental, or physical harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804 . . . substantial likelihood of severe emotional, mental, or physical harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804 . . . a substantial likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804 . . .

REAVES, v. STATE, 942 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2006)

. . . Witness Hinton was ruled unavailable to testify, [pursuant to] section 90.804(l)(b), Florida Statutes . . . but refuged to testify at the 1992 retrial and was ruled unavailable to testify pursuant to section 90.804 . . .