DANYAN MANGHAM
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Expert testimony may not be used as a conduit for introducing otherwise inadmissible evidence, and trial courts have discretion to weigh probative value against prejudicial impact in evidentiary rulings.
[1] Expert testimony may not be used as a conduit for the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence.
[2] A trial court's decision to weigh probative value against prejudicial impact in admitting evidence will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an expert's testimony 'may not merely be used as a conduit for the introduction of the otherwise inadmissible evidence'”
Citing Dayes v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Linn v. Fossum regarding limitations on expert testimony
Danyan Mangham appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and business records.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Impact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Dayes v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 3D19-1920, 2021 WL 262037, at *4 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 27, 2021) (quoting Linn v. Fossum, 946 So. 2d 1032, 1037-38 (Fla. 2006)) (“an expert’s testimony ‘may not merely be used as a conduit for the introduction of the otherwise inadmissible evidence’”); 50 State Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Giangrandi, 132 So. 3d 1128, 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact before reaching its decision, an appellate court shall not overturn such a decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.”) (internal citations omitted); Osagie v. State, 58 So. 3d 307, 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (finding error in admitting business records “without a custodian of the records or other qualified person testifying as to the accuracy of the records”).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 50 State Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Lili Carissa Giangrandi, 132 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)