JAVARIUS HENDRIX
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP
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.
A trial court's discretionary decision to exclude evidence under Florida Statute § 90.403 will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.
[1] Under Florida Statute § 90.403, relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issue…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“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.”
Court citing Trees v. K-Mart Corp. to establish standard of review
Javarius Hendrix appealed a circuit court judgment in Miami-Dade County. The trial court excluded certain evidence during the proceedings.…
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 Fla. Evid. Code § 90.403 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”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- M. David Sims, M.D. v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1991)
- Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)