JAVARIUS HENDRIX,
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”); Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So. 2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“The determination of relevancy is within the discretion of the trial court. Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact before reaching its decision to admit or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.”) (citation omitted); Sims v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 1991) (citing Trees with approval, observing that “[t]he weighing of relevance versus prejudice or confusion is best performed by the trial judge who is present and best able to compare the two”).