Cases from cite.case.law:

MONBESIR, v. STATE, 166 So. 3d 897 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . relating the contents of a voice message from appellant may have been properly denied based upon section 90.954 . . .

YERO, v. STATE, 138 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes Finally, Yero maintains that the trial court erred in failing to . . . In any event, the testimony was admissible under section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes (2012). . . . [a]ll originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith.” § 90.954 . . .

T. D. W. a v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . “If a section 90.954 excuse cannot be shown, the testimony of a witness ... about the contents of the . . . Exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule Section 90.954, Florida Statutes (2012), sets forth certain exceptions . . . at the hearing. (4) The writing, recording, or photograph is not related to a controlling issue. § 90.954 . . . We found that the section 90.954(1) “lost or destroyed” exception to the best evidence rule did not apply . . . thus failed to establish that the video view was “lost or destroyed” within the meaning of section 90.954 . . .

RAINESS, v. In ESTATE OF MACHIDA,, 81 So. 3d 504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . available, secondary evidence regarding the contents of the original can be admitted under section 90.954 . . . admissible under section 90.953, it was clearly admissible, and ultimately admitted, under section 90.954 . . . Lopez, 483 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“Section 90.954 is broader than section 90.953-a copy which . . . is not admissible under section 90.953 as a duplicate may still be admissible under section 90.954.” . . . misplaced, and that there was no equivalent of the original proffered, the trial court, pursuant to section 90.954 . . .

J. COVINGTON, v. STATE, 75 So. 3d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See §§ 90.951-90.954, Fla. Stat. (2009). Reversed and remanded for a new trial. . . .

DYER, v. STATE, 26 So. 3d 700 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . of “other evidence” of the contents of a “writing, recording, or photograph” is governed by section 90.954 . . .

H. A. a v. STATE, 24 So. 3d 752 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . conclude that the photographs were properly admitted as duplicates pursuant to sections 90.953 and 90.954 . . . H.A. contends that sections 90.952 to 90.954 required the State to produce the original videotape or . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. CARTER,, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . the trial court should have allowed it to establish the contents of the agreement pursuant to section 90.954 . . . Section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes (2008), provides, inter alia, that the original of a writing is not . . . the proponent provides a satisfactory explanation that the original contract was lost or destroyed. § 90.954 . . . duplicates, on remand, trial court could allow party to establish contents of documents under section 90.954 . . .

ENGLAND, v. STATE, 940 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2006)

. . . .” § 90.954, Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis supplied). . . .

RUSSELL, v. STATE, 844 So. 2d 725 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 90.954 of the Florida Statutes (2000) further explains that: 90.954 Admissibility of other evidence . . . at the hearing. (4) The writing, recording, or photograph is not related to a controlling issue. § 90.954 . . .

McKEEHAN, v. STATE, 838 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 90.954, Florida Statutes, amplifies the preceding statute by providing that: The original of . . .

PLEMONDON, v. FERNANDEZ, M. D. M. D. P. A. M. D. D. C., 699 So. 2d 755 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . I believe sections 90.953 and 90.954, Florida Statutes (1995) would allow for its admission, to allow . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. J. RESNICK,, 636 So. 2d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . that because the appellee/cross appellant has not substantiated any claim, under Sections 90.953 and 90.954 . . .

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, v. COOKE,, 624 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1993)

. . . notice, secondary evidence is admissible for such purpose if one of the exceptions set forth in section 90.954 . . . their unavailability was not the result of bad faith on the part of the proponent of the evidence. § 90.954 . . .

INSURANCE COMPANY OF STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, B G v. GENOVA EXPRESS LINES, INC., 605 So. 2d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Section 90.954 provides, inter alia, that the original of a writing is not required and other evidence . . .

VAZ, v. STATE, 599 So. 2d 250 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . .-952, 90.953, and 90.954, Fla.Stat. (1991). The conviction is therefore affirmed. . . .

A. HUTCHINSON, v. STATE, 580 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . .-952, 90.953, and 90.954, Florida Statutes (1989). . . .

SAPORITO, v. A. MADRAS,, 576 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 90.954 provides for the admissibility of a duplicate when: (1) All originals are lost or destroyed . . . In both instances Saporito was not permitted to make a proper showing under sections 90.953 and 90.954 . . .

ALBERTSONS, INC. v. ALL CARE ENTERPRISES, INC., 503 So. 2d 463 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . appellant should be given another opportunity upon retrial to demonstrate its compliance with section 90.954 . . .

ALLEN, v. STATE, 492 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . tape-recorded confession would be admissible as secondary evidence under the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.954 . . .

GARCIA, v. LOPEZ,, 483 So. 2d 470 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . correct in their contention that the copy is not a duplicate, it is still admissible under section 90.954 . . . Section 90.954 is broader than section 90.953 —a copy which is not admissible under section 90.953 as . . . a duplicate may still be admissible under section 90.954. . . . Section 90.954 provides for admission of other evidence of the contents of the writing (i.e., evidence . . .

HERNANDEZ v. PINO, D. D. S. a, 482 So. 2d 450 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . See § 90.954, Fla.Stat. (1983); Valcin v. . . . On the present state of the record, the question is answered by the best evidence rule, section 90.954 . . .

FREDERICKS, v. G. HOWELL,, 426 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . However, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1979), abolishes the distinction made between degrees of secondary . . . Law Revision Counsel note section 90.954; Evidence in Florida § 8.11, The Florida Bar (2d ed. 1978). . . . original would be subject to proof at the hearing, and such original is not produced at the hearing. § 90.954 . . . Under these circumstances, section 90.954 permits the admission of other evidence regarding the contents . . . See § 90.954, Fla.Stat. . . .

L. O NEAL O v. BOLLING,, 409 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . existed, it may allow Bolling to establish the contents of the notes in the manner provided in Section 90.954 . . .

LOWERY, v. STATE, 402 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . However, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1979), abolishes the distinction made between degrees of secondary . . . Law Revision Counsel note section 90.954; Evidence in Florida § 8.11, The Florida Bar (2d ed. 1978). . . .

ACTION FIRE SAFETY EQUIPMENT, INC. v. BISCAYNE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., 383 So. 2d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . See § 90.954, Fla.Stat. . . . .