Florida's rule on evidence law turns on a feature the national template does not capture: Florida evidence practice is organized under the Florida Evidence Code. Relevance starts at Fla. Stat. §§ 90.401, 90.403; hearsay starts at Fla. Stat. §§ 90.801, 90.802. The controlling authority is Florida Evidence Code. Authenticity is a separate fight under Fla. Stat. §§ 90.901, 90.902. Depositions at trial: Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.330 governs use of depositions in civil trials, including impeachment and substantive use when hearsay exceptions apply. Criminal cases follow Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220 discovery rules; deposition testimony at trial generally requires Fla. Stat. § 90.804(2)(a) former-testimony foundation with unavailability.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
Worked example under Florida law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Florida. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
A lawyer in Florida wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Fla. Stat. §§ 90.401, 90.403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Fla. Stat. § 90.803(18) before the hearsay definition in Fla. Stat. §§ 90.801, 90.802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Fla. Stat. § 90.803(6) and the treatment purpose in Fla. Stat. § 90.803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet Fla. Stat. § 90.804(2)(b), then authenticate every exhibit under Fla. Stat. §§ 90.901, 90.902.
Florida keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Florida Evidence Code. Winning one does not win the others.
General standards of admissibility
Florida starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Fla. Stat. §§ 90.401, 90.403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Florida party-opponent statements appear in § 90.803(18), not 801(d)(2). Florida also has unique rules on similar fact and Williams Rule evidence in § 90.404(2) that differ slightly from FRE 404(b).
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Character evidence
Character evidence in Florida is governed by Fla. Stat. §§ 90.404, 90.405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Florida character-evidence opinions
Coolen v. State
Coolen v. State, 696 So. 2d 738 (1997)
…] Section 90.404(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with his or her character on a particular occasion. Section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible when relevant solely to prove bad character or prop…
Coolen v. State is worth reading on Florida character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "Section 90.404(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with his or her character on a particular occasion. Section 90." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Jackson v. State
Jackson v. State, 451 So. 2d 458 (1984)
…id probative value and only tended to show bad character or propensity, and therefore is inadmissible. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1979); Drake v. State, 400 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1981); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).[2] *461 Before addressing the merits of this point, we must deal with the state's contention t…
Practitioners open Jackson v. State when Florida character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Fla. Stat. (1979); Drake v. State, 400 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1981); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Whitted v. State
Whitted v. State, 362 So. 2d 668 (1978)
…elevant is inadmissible if its sole purpose is to "show the propensity of the accused to commit the instant crime charged." If the aforementioned objectionable *673 testimony did not directly involve the petitioner and if it had no tendency to demonstrate the commission of a collateral (related) crime what purpose then could such evidence serve except to suggest a tendency, inc…
On character evidence, Whitted v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "elevant is inadmissible if its sole purpose is to 'show the propensity of the accused to commit the instant crime charged.' If the aforementioned objectionable *673 testimony did not directly involve the petitioner and if it had no tendency to demonstrate the commission of a coll" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Cotita v. State
Cotita v. State, 381 So. 2d 1146 (1980)
…evant for any purpose save that of showing bad character or propensity" of the accused and, evidence is relevant "if it bears a certain relation to the crime charged to the extent that it is relevant to a fact in issue ..."[3] Defendant contends that the evidence here was only relevant to show his bad character or propensity and should not have been admitted. The testimony show…
Florida opinions such as Cotita v. State are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Defendant contends that the evidence here was only relevant to show his bad character or propensity and should not have been admitted." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Beneby v. State
Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (1978)
…nce was submitted by the State was to show bad character or propensity just what Williams forbids. The evidence of the guilt of the Defendant is clear but the entire transcript is red-lighted by the improprieties mentioned. Therefore we must add our emphasis by reversing for a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED. CROSS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] All that is necessary is…
Florida opinions such as Beneby v. State are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "State was to show bad character or propensity just what Williams forbids. The evidence of the guilt of the Defendant is clear but the entire transcript is red-lighted by the improprieties mentioned. Therefore we must add our emphasis by reversing for a new trial." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Green v. State
Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42 (1966)
…r of the accused; and its sole purpose is not to show the propensity of the accused to commit the instant crime charged; and its admission is not precluded by some other specific exception or rule of exclusion. Thus, evidence would now be admissible as meeting the foregoing tests flowing from Williams which, prior to Williams, was held admissible under one or more of the th…
Green v. State is worth reading on Florida character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "r of the accused; and its sole purpose is not to show the propensity of the accused to commit the instant crime charged; and its admission is not precluded by some other specific exception or rule of exclusion. Thus, evidence would now be admissible as meeting the foregoing t" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Smith v. State
Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (1992)
…on is not necessary. Banks, 351 So.2d at 1072. If, however, character evidence is offered to prove the reasonableness of the defendant's apprehension, prior knowledge of the specific-act violence is necessary. Id. Before a defendant may offer either type of character evidence, he or she must lay a proper predicate demonstrating some overt act by the victim at or about the time…
On character evidence, Smith v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Banks, 351 So.2d at 1072. If, however, character evidence is offered to prove the reasonableness of the defendant's apprehension, prior knowledge of the specific-act violence is necessary. Id." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Gorham v. State
Gorham v. State, 454 So. 2d 556 (1984)
…d prejudicing the jury against Gorham because of irrelevant character evidence. First, we note that the evidence presented is not similar-fact evidence and thus does not fall within the Williams rule, Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959). The evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses did not bring before the…
On character evidence, Gorham v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Gorham because of irrelevant character evidence. First, we note that the evidence presented is not similar-fact evidence and thus does not fall within the Williams rule, Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Florida are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Fla. Stat. §§ 90.801, 90.802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Florida hearsay opinions
State v. Townsend
State v. Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949 (1994)
…d II), which concerns the admissibility of a two-year-old's hearsay statements in this child-sexual-abuse case. This issue involves a relatively new area of the law in which the legislature and the courts are attempting to provide a means for admitting a child's hearsay testimony at trial, particularly in child abuse cases. Before the enactment of the child hearsay exception at…
On hearsay, State v. Townsend speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "II), which concerns the admissibility of a two-year-old's hearsay statements in this child-sexual-abuse case." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Gray v. State
Gray v. State, 910 So. 2d 867 (2005)
…a prison releasee reoffender because the State adduced only hearsay to prove the date of his release from prison. We accept this contention, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. In order to impose a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentence, the sentencing court had to find that Mr. Gray had been released from prison no more than three years before he committed the…
Florida opinions such as Gray v. State are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "State adduced only hearsay to prove the date of his release from prison. We accept this contention, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. In order to impose a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentence, the sentencing court had to find that Mr." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Stoll v. State
Stoll v. State, 762 So. 2d 870 (2000)
…tained the objection as to allowing Martin to testify as to hearsay. Thereafter, in rebuttal, the State again called Martin, and again, defense counsel objected on the basis of hearsay. The trial court overruled this objection whereupon Martin testified that: Julie made me promise her in August [1994] when she came to my house one Saturday morning and was upset and shaken and c…
On hearsay, Stoll v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Martin to testify as to hearsay. Thereafter, in rebuttal, the State again called Martin, and again, defense counsel objected on the basis of hearsay." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Burgess v. State
Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (2002)
…mation contained in police reports is ordinarily considered hearsay and inadmissible in an adversary criminal proceeding. See Bolin v. State, 736 So.2d 1160, 1167 (Fla.1999). Nor does the information contained in the report in question fall under any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. See §§ 90.801-805, Fla. Stat. (1999). A police report or criminal arrest affidavit is n…
Florida opinions such as Burgess v. State are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "See Bolin v. State, 736 So.2d 1160, 1167 (Fla.1999). Nor does the information contained in the report in question fall under any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. See §§ 90.801-805, Fla. Stat. (1999)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Griffin v. State
Griffin v. State, 526 So. 2d 752 (1988)
…lie about them. See Note, A Comprehensive Approach To Child Hearsay Statements in Sex Abuse Cases, 83 Colum.L.Rev. 1745, 1751 (1983), and authorities cited therein. The state of public awareness regarding child sexual abuse has resulted in the enactment, in Florida and other states, of hearsay exceptions for use solely in prosecutions for child sexual abuse. See, e.g., Kan. Sta…
Griffin v. State is worth reading on Florida hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "See Note, A Comprehensive Approach To Child Hearsay Statements in Sex Abuse Cases, 83 Colum.L.Rev. 1745, 1751 (1983), and authorities cited therein." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Baker v. State
Baker v. State, 336 So. 2d 364 (1976)
…al interest have not been recognized as an exception to the hearsay rule in the First District, Francis v. State, 308 So.2d 174 (Fla.App.1st 1975); Pitts v. State, 307 So.2d 473 (Fla. App.1st 1975) cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 918, 96 S.Ct. 302, 46 L.Ed.2d 273 (1975), and concluded, "If the proferred [sic] evidence cannot be admitted, it cannot affect the result of the trial." 319…
On hearsay, Baker v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "First District, Francis v. State, 308 So.2d 174 (Fla.App.1st 1975); Pitts v. State, 307 So.2d 473 (Fla. App.1st 1975) cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 918, 96 S.Ct. 302, 46 L.Ed." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Johnson v. State
Johnson v. State, 929 So. 2d 4 (2005)
…did not testify. We conclude the lab report was testimonial hearsay admitted despite the declarant's availability to testify; therefore, we reverse Johnson's convictions for possession of cocaine, introduction of contraband into a detention facility, and possession of marijuana. We affirm without comment Johnson's conviction for obstructing an officer without violence. Johnson…
Johnson v. State is worth reading on Florida hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "We conclude the lab report was testimonial hearsay admitted despite the declarant's availability to testify; therefore, we reverse Johnson's convictions for possession of cocaine, introduction of contraband into a detention facility, and possession of marijuana." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Van Zant v. State
Van Zant v. State, 372 So. 2d 502 (1979)
…en sustained because (1) the documents contain inadmissible hearsay; (2) the State failed to disclose the documents to the defense until thirty minutes before they were introduced; (3) the documents were not proper rebuttal evidence. The State contends that the documents were properly admitted into evidence because (1) they come within the business record exception to the hears…
Practitioners open Van Zant v. State when Florida hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State failed to disclose the documents to the defense until thirty minutes before they were introduced; (3) the documents were not proper rebuttal evidence." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Florida treats them under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(18). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Florida party-admission opinions
Roy Clifton SWAFFORD v. STATE of Florida
Roy Clifton SWAFFORD v. STATE of Florida, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 595 (1988)
…r two separate theories, as similar fact evidence and as an admission of guilt. Swafford now argues that the trial court erred in admitting Johnson’s testimony because it presented information about a collateral crime, wrong, or act that was not relevant to a material issue of fact, contrary to Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert, denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4…
On party admissions, Roy Clifton SWAFFORD v. STATE of Florida speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Swafford now argues that the trial court erred in admitting Johnson’s testimony because it presented information about a collateral crime, wrong, or act that was not relevant to a material issue of fact, contrary to Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert, denied, 361 U.S." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Johnson v. State
Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 938 (2007)
…for cause to a potential juror over defense objection; (2) admission of a statement by the victim while she was being strangled; (3) allowing the State to proceed on a robbery count charged by information rather than indictment; (4) improper cross-examination of the defendant; (5) sufficiency of the evidence of kidnapping, sexual battery, and felony murder; (6) proportionality…
Johnson v. State is worth reading on Florida party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "for cause to a potential juror over defense objection; (2) admission of a statement by the victim while she was being strangled; (3) allowing the State to proceed on a robbery count charged by information rather than indictment; (4) improper cross-examination of the defendant; (5" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Ibar v. State
Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (2006)
…mony; (5) whether the trial court erroneously precluded the admission of evidence regarding third-party motive and animosity and reputation evidence; (6) whether the trial court erred in allowing the admission of evidence regarding a live lineup; (7) whether the integrity of the trial was affected by references to certain evidence denying Ibar due process; (8) whether the death…
Ibar v. State is worth reading on Florida party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "mony; (5) whether the trial court erroneously precluded the admission of evidence regarding third-party motive and animosity and reputation evidence; (6) whether the trial court erred in allowing the admission of evidence regarding a live lineup; (7) whether the integrity of the" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4378 (1976)
…so. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal determined that admission of the quoted testimony was prejudicial error and reversed the judgment for petitioner. That Court held that the testimony at issue went considerably beyond the showing of bias or animus and constituted direct impeachment of Pergerson's previous testimony by hearsay and that no proper foundation had been laid…
On party admissions, Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "On appeal, the District Court of Appeal determined that admission of the quoted testimony was prejudicial error and reversed the judgment for petitioner." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Hoefert v. State
Hoefert v. State, 617 So. 2d 1046 (1993)
…vidence, we find that the testimony actually constituted an admission of a party-opponent that is admissible as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule. § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. (1989). This Court has held admissible the statements of a defendant made either before or after the time of the crime charged, even when the testimony about the statements showed the commission of se…
On party admissions, Hoefert v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "vidence, we find that the testimony actually constituted an admission of a party-opponent that is admissible as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule. § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. (1989). This Court has held admissible the statements of a defendant made either before or after the" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
ARBOR TREE MANAGEMENT, INC., D/B/A Coast Cadillac Co., Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and
…manager’s hearsay testimony, in the form of the claimant’s admissions to the service manager. The service manager testified directly concerning the claimant’s admissions. The claimant’s statements to the service manager were admissible as an exception to the hearsay exclusion rule under section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes (2010), which provides that a statement offered agains…
ARBOR TREE MANAGEMENT, INC., D/B/A Coast Cadillac Co., Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and is worth reading on Florida party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "The service manager testified directly concerning the claimant’s admissions. The claimant’s statements to the service manager were admissible as an exception to the hearsay exclusion rule under section 90." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Trahn BOWENS v. STATE of Florida
Trahn BOWENS v. STATE of Florida, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1323 (2012)
…OLO. We affirm on both issues, but write to explain why the admission of the surreptitiously recorded conversation did not violate Crawford,. The events precipitating this case occurred when Patrick, the victim, bumped another vehicle while driving. Both vehicles pulled into a gas station. Patrick exited the vehicle to talk to Michael, the other driver. Bowens, Michael, and Mic…
On party admissions, Trahn BOWENS v. STATE of Florida speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "OLO. We affirm on both issues, but write to explain why the admission of the surreptitiously recorded conversation did not violate Crawford,. The events precipitating this case occurred when Patrick, the victim, bumped another vehicle while driving." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Alvin C. GAYLE v. STATE of Florida
Alvin C. GAYLE v. STATE of Florida, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5368 (2017)
…at the State failed to lay the necessary foundation for its admission under the business records exception. See § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (2015); Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952, 956 (Fla. 2008). The State responds that the Report was not admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted, making it not hearsay at all, and further that the statements were Appellant’s own, placing…
Practitioners open Alvin C. GAYLE v. STATE of Florida when Florida party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State failed to lay the necessary foundation for its admission under the business records exception. See § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (2015); Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952, 956 (Fla. 2008)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Business records
The business-records exception under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Florida business-records opinions
Yisrael v. State
Yisrael v. State, 938 So. 2d 546 (2006)
…not say where or in whose custody any original official or business records are kept. 910 So.2d at 869. The court added that: "[w]here nothing more than inadmissible hearsay received over specific objection is adduced in order to prove a prison release date necessary for sentence enhancement, the enhanced sentence cannot withstand attack on direct appeal." 910 So.2d at 870. Ju…
Florida opinions such as Yisrael v. State are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "So.2d at 869. The court added that: '[w]here nothing more than inadmissible hearsay received over specific objection is adduced in order to prove a prison release date necessary for sentence enhancement, the enhanced sentence cannot withstand attack on direct appeal.' 910 So." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Gray v. State
Gray v. State, 910 So. 2d 867 (2005)
…8 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). "Computer printouts, like business records, are admissible if the custodian or other qualified witness is available to testify as to manner of preparation, reliability and trustworthiness of the product." Cofield v. State, 474 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (adopting rule as stated in Pickrell v. State, 301 So.2d 473, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…
Gray v. State is worth reading on Florida business records because the court put the point in its own words: "So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). 'Computer printouts, like business records, are admissible if the custodian or other qualified witness is available to testify as to manner of preparation, reliability and trustworthiness of the product.' Cofield v. State, 474 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for the Noteholders Cwabs Inc., Asset Backed Notes Series 2006-SD4006-SD4, Appellant
…istory since its witness laid a proper foundation under the business record exception. We agree and reverse. I. FACTS In February 2008, Bank of New York filed a complaint seeking to foreclose upon a real property mortgage executed by the Borrower. The matter proceeded to a non-jury trial on May 8, 2013, during which Bank of New York centered its case around one witness — Jean K…
On business records, BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for the Noteholders Cwabs Inc., Asset Backed Notes Series 2006-SD4006-SD4, Appellant speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "We agree and reverse. I. FACTS In February 2008, Bank of New York filed a complaint seeking to foreclose upon a real property mortgage executed by the Borrower." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Daniel WOLKOFF and Aimee Wolkoff v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.
…to. AHMSI did not submit the proposed final judgment or any business records relevant to the Wol-koffs’ mortgage payment history as evidence. At trial, the Wolkoffs, who are both experienced in real estate, admitted to executing the note and testified that “money was owed to somebody.” The trial court ultimately entered a final judgment of foreclosure in the amount of $960,660.…
Practitioners open Daniel WOLKOFF and Aimee Wolkoff v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. when Florida business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "AHMSI did not submit the proposed final judgment or any business records relevant to the Wol-koffs’ mortgage payment history as evidence. At trial, the Wolkoffs, who are both experienced in real estate, admitted to executing the note and testified that “money was owed to somebody." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Van Zant v. State
Van Zant v. State, 372 So. 2d 502 (1979)
…rly admitted into evidence because (1) they come within the business record exception to the hearsay rule and were admitted to show Van Zant's and Taylor's state of mind; (2) the trial judge determined after adequate inquiry that the State did not deliberately withhold the documents from the defense; (3) the documents properly rebutted Van Zant's testimony, or the inference sug…
Practitioners open Van Zant v. State when Florida business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "rly admitted into evidence because (1) they come within the business record exception to the hearsay rule and were admitted to show Van Zant's and Taylor's state of mind; (2) the trial judge determined after adequate inquiry that the State did not deliberately withhold the docume" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Love v. Garcia
Love v. Garcia, 634 So. 2d 158 (1994)
…oduce the results of Garcia's two blood alcohol tests[1] as business records. The introduction was based on a predicate which consisted of testimony by the record custodians of SmithKline and the hospital. Garcia challenged the accuracy, reliability and trustworthiness of the tests, and filed a motion in limine to exclude the results. The motion was based on: 1) Love's failure…
Florida opinions such as Love v. Garcia are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Garcia's two blood alcohol tests[1] as business records. The introduction was based on a predicate which consisted of testimony by the record custodians of SmithKline and the hospital." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Loyal R. CAYEA, Jr., a/k/a Loyal R. Cayea and Lori J. Cayea a/k/a Lori Cayea v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
…in bank records which complied with the requirements of the business records exception and affirm. At trial, Citi called Michael Windsor, an employee of its default research and litigation department, as a witness. Mr. Windsor testified the Cayeas had been in default on their loan since April of 2009. Citi then sought to admit a summary of the Cayeas’ payment history after Mr.…
Florida opinions such as Loyal R. CAYEA, Jr., a/k/a Loyal R. Cayea and Lori J. Cayea a/k/a Lori Cayea v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "At trial, Citi called Michael Windsor, an employee of its default research and litigation department, as a witness. Mr. Windsor testified the Cayeas had been in default on their loan since April of 2009. Citi then sought to admit a summary of the Cayeas’ payment history after Mr." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC v. Jose J. BERDECIA and Carmen Berdecia
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC v. Jose J. BERDECIA and Carmen Berdecia, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9746 (2015)
…for Nationstar, whose job duties included reviewing various business records associated with the mortgages that Nationstar services in preparation for trials and mediations.2 Willoughby was called to lay a predicate for admitting into evidence mortgage documents pertinent to the case. As to those documents, Wil-loughby testified that, in the ordinary course of business, Nations…
Practitioners open NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC v. Jose J. BERDECIA and Carmen Berdecia when Florida business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Nationstar, whose job duties included reviewing various business records associated with the mortgages that Nationstar services in preparation for trials and mediations.2 Willoughby was called to lay a predicate for admitting into evidence mortgage documents pertinent to the case." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Florida trial practice.
Excited utterance — Fla. Stat. § 90.803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Fla. Stat. § 90.803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Fla. Stat. § 90.803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Fla. Stat. § 90.804(1), Florida opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Fla. Stat. § 90.804(2)(a) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Fla. Stat. § 90.804(2)(b) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Florida dying-declaration opinions
Leon DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Leon DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 528 (2016)
…d when it admitted the statements of victim Bustamante as a dying declaration; (2) whether the photopack identifications of Davis, made by victim Greisman and eyewitness Ortiz, should have been excluded; (3) whether photographs of the murder victims were unfairly prejudicial; and (4) whether the trial court improperly found that Davis committed the murder of Bustamante in order…
On dying declaration, Leon DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "d when it admitted the statements of victim Bustamante as a dying declaration; (2) whether the photopack identifications of Davis, made by victim Greisman and eyewitness Ortiz, should have been excluded; (3) whether photographs of the murder victims were unfairly prejudicial; and" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Nancy Malone, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error
Nancy Malone, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error, 72 Fla. 28 (1916)
…ial a witness, over objection and exception, testified to a dying declaration made by the decedent as follows : “She told me she was going to die. * She did not express any hope of getting well, but said she could not get well. She said that woman (Nancy Malone) shot her on account of a fight they had. She said she was shot. That is about all I remember. That is all I remem…
Nancy Malone, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error is worth reading on Florida dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "She told me she was going to die. * She did not express any hope of getting well, but said she could not get well. She said that woman (Nancy Malone) shot her on account of a fight they had. She said she was shot. That is about all I remember." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
O. P. Kirkland, Alias Bud Kirkland, and Fred Stokes, Plantiffs in Error, v. the State of Florida, Defendant in Error
…o the testimony of the witness, Dr. C. C. Collins as to the dying declaration of the deceased, and in permitting the said witness to testify and give in evidence the dying declaration made by the deceased. 5. Because the Court erred in denying the motion of the defendants to strike out the testimony and statement of the witness Dr. C. C. Collins as to the dying declaration of t…
On dying declaration, O. P. Kirkland, Alias Bud Kirkland, and Fred Stokes, Plantiffs in Error, v. the State of Florida, Defendant in Error speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Dr. C. C. Collins as to the dying declaration of the deceased, and in permitting the said witness to testify and give in evidence the dying declaration made by the deceased. 5." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Nat Richardson, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error
Nat Richardson, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error, 80 Fla. 634 (1920)
…on of' *636defendant a written statement purporting to be a dying declaration of deceased. This statement is as follows: “State of Florida, County of Duval, “Jacksonville. “I, Ray Butts, realizing that I am’ about to die, and that it is impossible for me to recover, and being conscious of my condition, and in the very article of death, do make this my dying declaration and stat…
On dying declaration, Nat Richardson, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "This statement is as follows: “State of Florida, County of Duval, “Jacksonville." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Leon DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Leon DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 515 (2016)
…om the Headley case. Additionally, Davis raises two issues (dying declaration and eyewitness identifications) in both direct appeals. We now set forth the facts of this case and then address Davis’s claims on direct appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On the evening of December 7, 2007, Davis drove to the vicinity of a BP gas station and convenience store (BP) wit…
On dying declaration, Leon DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Headley case. Additionally, Davis raises two issues (dying declaration and eyewitness identifications) in both direct appeals. We now set forth the facts of this case and then address Davis’s claims on direct appeal." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Weir
State v. Weir, 569 So. 2d 897 (1990)
…rt order granting a defendant's motion in limine, barring a dying declaration offered in a pending second degree murder prosecution. In an order released earlier, this court granted certiorari and quashed the trial court order which held that the dying declaration exception to hearsay in Florida is unconstitutional. This opinion provides the rationale for that order. On the poi…
Florida opinions such as State v. Weir are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "In an order released earlier, this court granted certiorari and quashed the trial court order which held that the dying declaration exception to hearsay in Florida is unconstitutional. This opinion provides the rationale for that order." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Weir v. State
Weir v. State, 591 So. 2d 593 (1991)
…in the negative. This case concerned the admissibility of a dying declaration. Weir filed a pretrial motion in limine to prohibit introducing and referring to the declaration, claiming that the victim's statement did not qualify as a dying declaration. Because of the scheduling of witnesses, the court did not hear the motion until after the jury was sworn and evidence taken. At…
Weir v. State is worth reading on Florida dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "This case concerned the admissibility of a dying declaration. Weir filed a pretrial motion in limine to prohibit introducing and referring to the declaration, claiming that the victim's statement did not qualify as a dying declaration." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Florida medical-statement opinions
Conley v. State
Conley v. State, 620 So. 2d 180 (1993)
…at the evidence, although hearsay, was admissible under the medical diagnosis exception codified in section 90.803(4), Florida Statutes (1989).[6] Dr. Turner testified that he examined the woman immediately after the incident and filled out a form routinely used for this type of exam. Then he described what she told him: The patient stated that approximately 2:00 in the morning…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, Conley v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Florida Statutes (1989).[6] Dr. Turner testified that he examined the woman immediately after the incident and filled out a form routinely used for this type of exam." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Flanagan v. State
Flanagan v. State, 586 So. 2d 1085 (1991)
…o the identity of the child's sexual abuser pursuant to the medical diagnosis/treatment exception to the hearsay rule; 2) the trial court erred in allowing the jury to view videotaped testimony of the victim during its deliberations; 3) the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding general characteristics of child sex abuse offenders and the home environments in…
Flanagan v. State is worth reading on Florida medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "o the identity of the child's sexual abuser pursuant to the medical diagnosis/treatment exception to the hearsay rule; 2) the trial court erred in allowing the jury to view videotaped testimony of the victim during its deliberations; 3) the trial court erred in admitting expert t" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Begley v. State
Begley v. State, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 321 (1986)
…da Statutes, which provides: (4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, or made by an individual who has knowledge of the facts and is legally responsible for the person who is unable to communicate the facts, which statements describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pain or sensation…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, Begley v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Statutes, which provides: (4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Jones
State v. Jones, 625 So. 2d 821 (1993)
…nd that the doctors' testimony was not admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the rule against hearsay because the physicians were providing services for the child protection team. Although noting that treatment would follow naturally from the examination, the court found that "the true and only initial purpose of the examination was to determine wheth…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, State v. Jones speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "nd that the doctors' testimony was not admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the rule against hearsay because the physicians were providing services for the child protection team. Although noting that treatment would follow naturally from the examinatio" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Ochoa
State v. Ochoa, 576 So. 2d 854 (1991)
…ough hearsay, were admissible as statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment under subsection 90.803(4), Florida Statutes (1989).[1] Omitting that portion of the statements pertaining to the identity of the perpetrator, the victims' statements were in essence that they had been touched in the genitalia by an adult male and had experienced some pain when that happe…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, State v. Ochoa speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "ough hearsay, were admissible as statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment under subsection 90.803(4), Florida Statutes (1989).[1] Omitting that portion of the statements pertaining to the identity of the perpetrator, the victims' statements were in essence that t" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Saul v. JOHN D. AND CATHERINE T. MacARTHUR
Saul v. JOHN D. AND CATHERINE T. MacARTHUR, 499 So. 2d 917 (1986)
…owing from the hearsay rule: (4) STATEMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment, or made by an individual who has knowledge of the facts and is legally responsible for the person who is unable to communicate the facts, which statements describe medical his…
Saul v. JOHN D. AND CATHERINE T. MacARTHUR is worth reading on Florida medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "STATEMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Pardo
State v. Pardo, 582 So. 2d 1225 (1991)
…ing on the admissibility of statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment under subsection 90.803(4), Florida Statutes (1989). See generally State v. Ochoa, 576 So.2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The issue before us involves only the proper interpretation of subsection 90.803(23).[1] Turning to the merits of the petition, subsection 90.803(23) is a hearsay exception…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, State v. Pardo speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Florida Statutes (1989). See generally State v. Ochoa, 576 So.2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The issue before us involves only the proper interpretation of subsection 90.803(23).[1] Turning to the merits of the petition, subsection 90." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Neeley v. State
Neeley v. State, 883 So. 2d 861 (2004)
…01). The second is the exception for statements relevant to medical diagnosis or treatment. See § 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. (2001). Neither is appropriate. While the medical record itself could qualify under the business record exception, it is clear the contested phrase contained therein could not because the resident who took the statement had no personal knowledge of the facts,…
Neeley v. State is worth reading on Florida medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "The second is the exception for statements relevant to medical diagnosis or treatment. See § 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. (2001). Neither is appropriate." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Use of depositions at trial
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.330 governs use of depositions in civil trials, including impeachment and substantive use when hearsay exceptions apply. Criminal cases follow Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220 discovery rules; deposition testimony at trial generally requires Fla. Stat. § 90.804(2)(a) former-testimony foundation with unavailability.
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Florida deposition / former-testimony opinions
Rodriguez v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493 (1992)
…d to refuse to permit him to introduce that witness's prior deposition testimony; 2) it was fundamental error to conduct a joint trial for the first-degree murder and the charges stemming from the attempted home invasion; 3) it was error to admit the victim's sister-in-law's identification testimony; and 4) inadmissible hearsay testimony was introduced to improperly bolster the…
On deposition / former testimony, Rodriguez v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "d to refuse to permit him to introduce that witness's prior deposition testimony; 2) it was fundamental error to conduct a joint trial for the first-degree murder and the charges stemming from the attempted home invasion; 3) it was error to admit the victim's sister-in-law's iden" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Lopez v. State
Lopez v. State, 888 So. 2d 693 (2004)
…covery from the state. Hector Ruiz appeared for a discovery deposition and he was questioned by defense counsel. By the time of the trial, however, Ruiz was unavailable as a witness. The state was unable to serve him with a subpoena. Just before the trial, the prosecutor informed the court and defense counsel that the state would be proceeding only on the charge of possession o…
Florida opinions such as Lopez v. State are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Hector Ruiz appeared for a discovery deposition and he was questioned by defense counsel. By the time of the trial, however, Ruiz was unavailable as a witness. The state was unable to serve him with a subpoena." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Green
State v. Green, 667 So. 2d 756 (1995)
…(2)(a), WHEN THE STATEMENT WAS TAKEN AS PART OF A DISCOVERY DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.220? IS THE PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OF AN ALLEGED VICTIM OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, EVEN IF SAID ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, SUFFICIENT, IN AND OF ITSELF, TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION? We answer both questions in the negative, and, for the reasons expressed, quash in p…
Florida opinions such as State v. Green are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "WHEN THE STATEMENT WAS TAKEN AS PART OF A DISCOVERY DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.220?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Basiliere
State v. Basiliere, 353 So. 2d 820 (1977)
…ial Circuit, in and for Dade County, relating to the use of deposition testimony as evidence in a criminal trial upon a finding of unavailability of the witness. It appears that the questions presented herein are determinative of the cause and are without controlling precedent in this state. We have jurisdiction to answer the certified questions. Florida Appellate Rule 4.6, Jaw…
Florida opinions such as State v. Basiliere are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Circuit, in and for Dade County, relating to the use of deposition testimony as evidence in a criminal trial upon a finding of unavailability of the witness." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Belvin v. State
Belvin v. State, 922 So. 2d 1046 (2006)
…ed in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions"; "statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial" Id. at 51-52, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Breath test affidavits are usually…
Belvin v. State is worth reading on Florida deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Id. at 51-52, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citations omitted) (emphasis added)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Smith v. State
Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (1992)
…of violence by the victim, in refusing to admit a discovery deposition into evidence, and in sentencing appellant as a habitual violent felony offender pursuant to a statute that violated the single-subject rule provided in Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution. We agree with appellant as to the first issue and reverse and remand for new trial. Because of our dispo…
Practitioners open Smith v. State when Florida deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution. We agree with appellant as to the first issue and reverse and remand for new trial." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Contreras
State v. Contreras, 979 So. 2d 896 (2008)
…So.2d 149 (Fla. 2008), on the issue of whether a discovery deposition can satisfy the Crawford requirement of a prior opportunity for cross-examination of a witness. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we approve in part and quash in part the decision of the Fourth District in this case. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTO…
On deposition / former testimony, State v. Contreras speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "So.2d 149 (Fla. 2008), on the issue of whether a discovery deposition can satisfy the Crawford requirement of a prior opportunity for cross-examination of a witness. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Blanton v. State
Blanton v. State, 978 So. 2d 149 (2008)
…f the Fifth District in Blanton on the issue of a discovery deposition being an opportunity to cross-examine, but approve the result affirming the convictions based on harmless error. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Jesse L. Blanton was convicted of four counts of capital sexual battery and thirteen counts of promoting sexual performances by a child involving his eleven-year-old a…
On deposition / former testimony, Blanton v. State speaks to the Florida dispute in this passage: "Fifth District in Blanton on the issue of a discovery deposition being an opportunity to cross-examine, but approve the result affirming the convictions based on harmless error. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Jesse L." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Fla. Stat. §§ 90.901, 90.902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Florida's evidence code separates authentication (§§ 90.901–90.906) from the business-records exception. Insurance, medical-malpractice, and foreclosure cases turn on whether proffered records and surveillance video satisfy § 90.901 before § 90.803(6) is reached.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Florida trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Florida trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Florida authenticity opinions
Gray v. State
Gray v. State, 910 So. 2d 867 (2005)
…defense objected to the document on grounds it was not self-authenticating and did not fall within any exception to the rule excluding hearsay. Despite the objection, the trial court admitted the document into evidence, and found that Mr. Gray qualified for enhanced sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender based on the release date recited in Ms. Smith's statement. We are not…
Florida opinions such as Gray v. State are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Despite the objection, the trial court admitted the document into evidence, and found that Mr. Gray qualified for enhanced sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender based on the release date recited in Ms. Smith's statement." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Gomien v. State
Gomien v. State, 172 So. 2d 511 (1965)
…[B]ut to be competent evidence, the films must be properly authenticated and shown to be a faithful representation of the subject, sound, movement, or other tangible or intangible thing which they purport to reproduce. When such a showing is made to the trial court, moving picture films should be admitted under the same rules as photographs." The next occasion upon which this…
Practitioners open Gomien v. State when Florida authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "B]ut to be competent evidence, the films must be properly authenticated and shown to be a faithful representation of the subject, sound, movement, or other tangible or intangible thing which they purport to reproduce." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Wagner v. State
Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827 (1998)
…la.1987). Wagner argues that the videotape was not properly authenticated because there was no "pictorial testimony" offered. He argues that it was incumbent upon the State to offer testimony of the informant or some other witness who could testify that, based upon his or her personal knowledge, the tape fairly and accurately portrayed the incidents reflected thereon. Authentic…
Wagner v. State is worth reading on Florida authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "Wagner argues that the videotape was not properly authenticated because there was no 'pictorial testimony' offered." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Sylvester Kirch and Arthur Kirch, in Error v. J. C. Persinger for the Use and Benefit of James F. Dy — West, J
…part -of the bill of exceptions which was presented to and authenticated by the trial court. In the directions of the plaintiff in error to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for making' up the transcript of the record these documents are enumerated as if they were separate .from-the bill of exceptions. *371With, respect to plaintiff’s exhibit “A” the bill of exceptions contains t…
Florida opinions such as Sylvester Kirch and Arthur Kirch, in Error v. J. C. Persinger for the Use and Benefit of James F. Dy — West, J are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "In the directions of the plaintiff in error to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for making' up the transcript of the record these documents are enumerated as if they were separate .from-the bill of exceptions." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
THIRD FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIAITON OF CLEVELAND v. LEAH G. KOULOUVARIS A/ K/ A LEAH KOULOUVARIS
…t the HELOC note into evidence. The Koulouvarises raised an authentication objection. They argued that the HELOC note was nonnegotiable and, thus, not a self-authenticating instrument. The trial court sustained the objection. Third Federal made no further effort to authenticate the HELOC note. The trial court also rejected Third Federal's effort to admit the HELOC mortgage into…
Florida opinions such as THIRD FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIAITON OF CLEVELAND v. LEAH G. KOULOUVARIS A/ K/ A LEAH KOULOUVARIS are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "HELOC note into evidence. The Koulouvarises raised an authentication objection. They argued that the HELOC note was nonnegotiable and, thus, not a self-authenticating instrument. The trial court sustained the objection." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Solomon Milton v. State.
Solomon Milton v. State., 140 Fla. 617 (1939)
…vit is on a sheet of paper not filed in the trial court nor authenticated by the trial judge, and it is in no way made a part of the transcript of the record proper or of the bill of exceptions, which latter was authenticated by the trial judge. Stipulation of counsel that the affidavit may be made a part of the transcript cannot legally make it so, at least unless it is authen…
Florida opinions such as Solomon Milton v. State. are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "vit is on a sheet of paper not filed in the trial court nor authenticated by the trial judge, and it is in no way made a part of the transcript of the record proper or of the bill of exceptions, which latter was authenticated by the trial judge. Stipulation of counsel that the af" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
J. A. Kidd and Southern Surety Company, a Corporation, Plaintiffs in Error, v. City of Jacksonville, a Municipal
…e record succeeding the certificate of the trial judge that authenticated the bill of exceptions. The exhibit so copied into the transcript following the certificate of the trial judge authenticating the bill of exceptions, are not so referred to in the bill- of exceptions or in the authenticating certificate of the trial judge as to sufficiently identify the exhibits or to mak…
Practitioners open J. A. Kidd and Southern Surety Company, a Corporation, Plaintiffs in Error, v. City of Jacksonville, a Municipal when Florida authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "e record succeeding the certificate of the trial judge that authenticated the bill of exceptions. The exhibit so copied into the transcript following the certificate of the trial judge authenticating the bill of exceptions, are not so referred to in the bill- of exceptions or in" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Sunnyvale Maritime Co., Inc. v. Gomez
Sunnyvale Maritime Co., Inc. v. Gomez, 546 So. 2d 6 (1989)
…ater, after his release and return, died) were not properly authenticated and were therefore erroneously admitted. This lack of proper authentication, says the defendant, arose from the plaintiff's non-compliance with the procedure for self-authentication of foreign documents set out in Section 90.902, Florida Statutes (1987), that is, the failure to show that final certificati…
Florida opinions such as Sunnyvale Maritime Co., Inc. v. Gomez are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "This lack of proper authentication, says the defendant, arose from the plaintiff's non-compliance with the procedure for self-authentication of foreign documents set out in Section 90." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Fla. Stat. §§ 90.901, 90.902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Florida appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Florida?
Florida applies the Florida Evidence Code. Florida codified FRE-based rules in Fla. Stat. ch. 90; numbering uses a 90.xxx prefix but analysis largely tracks federal evidence law.
How do Florida courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Fla. Stat. §§ 90.401, 90.403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Florida?
Party-opponent statements under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(18) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Florida?
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.330 governs use of depositions in civil trials, including impeachment and substantive use when hearsay exceptions apply. Criminal cases follow Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220 discovery rules; deposition testimony at trial generally requires Fla. Stat. § 90.804(2)(a) former-testimony foundation with unavailability.
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Florida authenticity practice starts with Fla. Stat. §§ 90.901, 90.902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Fla. Stat. § 90.804(2)(b) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.