Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.954 (2025)

Admissibility of other evidence of contents.

✓ 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

90.954 Admissibility of other evidence of contents.—The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required, except as provided in s. 90.953, and other evidence of its contents is admissible when:

(1) All originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith.

(2) An original cannot be obtained in this state by any judicial process or procedure.

(3) An original was under the control of the party against whom offered at a time when that party was put on notice by the pleadings or by written notice from the adverse party that the contents of such original would be subject to proof at the hearing, and such original is not produced at the hearing.

(4) The writing, recording, or photograph is not related to a controlling issue.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 502, ch. 95-147.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). · cites it 7× “On appeal, ESI argues that as the written executed agreement was lost, the trial court should have allowed it to establish the contents of the agreement pursuant to section 90.954, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 90.”

England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 2× “" § 90.954, Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis supplied).”

T.D.W. v. State, 137 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). · cites it 7× “§ 90.954, Fla. Stat. (2012). The State argues that exception (1) applies because the relevant camera angle was lost or destroyed, but at trial the State offered no explanation for why the original video was missing.”

Rainess v. Est. of MacHida, 81 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). · cites it 5× “If, and only if, neither an original nor its equivalent is available, secondary evidence regarding the contents of the original can be admitted under section 90.954, which states, in relevant part: “The original of a writing .”

Lowery v. State, 402 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). · cites it 3× “However, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1979), abolishes the distinction made between degrees of secondary evidence.”

Russell v. State, 844 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). · cites it 3× “(3) An original was under the control of the party against whom offered at a time when that party was put on notice by the pleadings or by written notice from the adverse party that the contents of such original would be *728 subject to proof at the hearing, and such original is…”

Yero v. State, 138 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). · cites it 6× “” § 90.954(1), Fla. Stat. This exception recognizes “[t]he need for relevant evidence trumps the dangers of inaccuracy and fraud—issues left to the trier in assessing probative force .”

Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Cooke, 624 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1993). · cites it 2× “Moreover, even if the printout were offered to prove the contents of the notice, secondary evidence is admissible for such purpose if one of the exceptions set forth in section 90.954 is established. Thus, for example, the printout would be admissible to prove the contents of…”

Garcia v. Lopez, 483 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). · cites it 5× “Assuming the Lopezes are correct in their contention that the copy is not a duplicate, 1 it is still admissible under section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1983). Section 90.”

Action Fire Saf. v. Biscayne Fire Equip., 383 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). · cites it 2× “See § 90.954, Fla. Stat. [8] Biscayne's argument is simply that the new evidence probably would not have changed the jury's verdict and was merely cumulative.”

McKeehan v. State, 838 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). · cites it 2× “Section 90.954, Florida Statutes, amplifies the preceding statute by providing that: The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required, except as provided in s.”

Allen v. State, 492 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). · cites it 2× “Appellant maintains that while a written transcript of her tape-recorded confession would be admissible as secondary evidence under the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes (1981), if the tape itself (as the best evidence, section 90.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— 90.954(1) — 6 cases

Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “On appeal, ESI argues that as the written executed agreement was lost, the trial court should have allowed it to establish the contents of the agreement pursuant to section 90.954, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 90.”

Yero v. State, 138 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “” § 90.954(1), Fla. Stat. This exception recognizes “[t]he need for relevant evidence trumps the dangers of inaccuracy and fraud—issues left to the trier in assessing probative force .”

Allen v. State, 492 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). “Appellant maintains that while a written transcript of her tape-recorded confession would be admissible as secondary evidence under the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes (1981), if the tape itself (as the best evidence, section 90.”

Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Cooke, 624 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1993). “Moreover, even if the printout were offered to prove the contents of the notice, secondary evidence is admissible for such purpose if one of the exceptions set forth in section 90.954 is established. Thus, for example, the printout would be admissible to prove the contents of…”

T.D.W. v. State, 137 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “§ 90.954, Fla. Stat. (2012). The State argues that exception (1) applies because the relevant camera angle was lost or destroyed, but at trial the State offered no explanation for why the original video was missing.”

— 90.954(3) — 2 cases

Roosevelt Mondesir v. State of Florida, 166 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

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.