90.954
Admissibility of other evidence of contents.
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: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Carter
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Carter (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.”
England v. State (2006)
“" § 90.954, Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis supplied).”
T.D.W. v. State (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.”
Rainess v. Estate of MacHida (2012)
“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 (1981)
“However, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1979), abolishes the distinction made between degrees of secondary evidence.”
Russell v. State (2003)
“(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 (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 .”
Insurance Company of North America v. Cooke (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…”
Garcia v. Lopez (1986)
“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 Safety v. BISCAYNE FIRE EQUIPMENT (1980)
“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 (2003)
“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 (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.”
— 90.954(1) — 6 cases
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Carter (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 (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 (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.”
Insurance Company of North America v. Cooke (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 (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
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Carter (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.”
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.