Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.951 (2025)

Definitions.

✓ 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

90.951 Definitions.—For purposes of this chapter:

(1) “Writings” and “recordings” include letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photography, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation, upon paper, wood, stone, recording tape, or other materials.

(2) “Photographs” include still photographs, X-ray films, videotapes, and motion pictures.

(3) An “original” of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself, or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print made from it. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight and shown to reflect the data accurately is an “original.”

(4) “Duplicate” includes:

(a) A counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, from the same matrix; by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures; by mechanical or electronic rerecording; by chemical reproduction; or by other equivalent technique that accurately reproduces the original; or

(b) An executed carbon copy not intended by the parties to be an original.

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 12 cases, 1982–2011 · leading case: Bryant v. State, 810 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bryant v. State, 810 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). · cites it 4× “The proponent of a photograph must be prepared to establish as a predicate for its admission that the photograph fairly and accurately represents what it purports to depict.”

Cave v. State, 660 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1995). · cites it 2× “…defendant). [6] Photographic evidence consists of still photographs, X-ray films, videotapes, and motion pictures. § 90.951(2) Fla. Stat. (1993).”

Van Den Borre v. State, 596 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). · cites it 2× “" § 90.951(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). Although the Florida Evidence Code allows duplicates to be admitted in evidence, a genuine question about the authenticity of the original will prevent the admission of the duplicate.”

Andre v. Castor, 963 F. Supp. 1158 (M.D. Fla. 1997). “§ 90.951 -.954 (essentially the same as the above-recited federal rules).”

Garcia v. Lopez, 483 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “Because the copy is not an accurate reproduction, they say, it is not a “duplicate” within the meaning of section 90.951(4)(a), and, therefore, cannot be admitted under section 90.”

O'Neal v. Bolling, 409 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). · cites it 2× “Bolling’s recently-fashioned typed likenesses of the ,800 and ,000 promissory notes are not duplicates as defined by Section 90.951(4), Florida Statutes (1981).”

Tillman v. Smith, 472 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). ““The effect of this section, which is applicable only if the duplicate is produced by a method which insures accuracy and genuineness, see § 90.951(4), is to save time and expense previously wasted on producing the original when an equally reliable counterpart is at hand.”

Fredericks v. Howell, 426 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 90.951(4), Fla.Stat. (1981). In the case at bar, the authenticity of the photocopy was questioned; thus, in order to admit the copy into evidence the appellant had to show: (1) All originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent • lost or destroyed them in bad faith.”

H.A. v. State, 24 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “Section 90.951(4)(a) defines a duplicate as: “A counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, from the same matrix; by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures .”

HA v. State, 24 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “Section 90.951(4)(a) defines a duplicate as: "A counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, from the same matrix; by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures.”

Covington v. State, 75 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “See §§ 90.951-90.954, Fla. Stat. (2009). Reversed and remanded for a new trial.”

Gastroenterology Assocs. P.A. v. Matuson, 9 Fla. Supp. 2d 94 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985). “Section 90.951 provides in pertinent part 90.”

— 90.951(2) — 2 cases

Cave v. State, 660 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1995). “…defendant). [6] Photographic evidence consists of still photographs, X-ray films, videotapes, and motion pictures. § 90.951(2) Fla. Stat. (1993).”

Bryant v. State, 810 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “The proponent of a photograph must be prepared to establish as a predicate for its admission that the photograph fairly and accurately represents what it purports to depict.”

— 90.951(4) — 3 cases

O'Neal v. Bolling, 409 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). “Bolling’s recently-fashioned typed likenesses of the ,800 and ,000 promissory notes are not duplicates as defined by Section 90.951(4), Florida Statutes (1981).”

Fredericks v. Howell, 426 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “§ 90.951(4), Fla.Stat. (1981). In the case at bar, the authenticity of the photocopy was questioned; thus, in order to admit the copy into evidence the appellant had to show: (1) All originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent • lost or destroyed them in bad faith.”

— 90.951(4)(a) — 5 cases

Van Den Borre v. State, 596 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). “" § 90.951(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). Although the Florida Evidence Code allows duplicates to be admitted in evidence, a genuine question about the authenticity of the original will prevent the admission of the duplicate.”

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.