Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings

465 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Elder v. State
  296 So. 3d 440· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-05-27 ·cited 9×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for culpable negligence and remanded for a new trial and probation hearing. The court found that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the presumption of reasonable fear for justifiable use of deadly force and by exclu
• Payton v. State
  239 So. 3d 129· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-01-29 ·cited 9×
  A trial court does not abuse its discretion in excluding a third-party confession when the statement lacks sufficient corroboration and was made by a declarant under the influence of narcotics and alcohol, failing to satisfy the trustworthiness requirements of both the Florida Ev
• Tripoli v. State
  50 So. 3d 776· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-12-29 ·cited 9×
  Anthony Tripoli was convicted of sexual battery and lewd and lascivious conduct with an eight-year-old child. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his convictions because the trial court improperly admitted testimony about Tripoli's inappropriate physical contact
• Med. Logistics, Inc. v. Marchines
  911 So. 2d 823· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-08-29 ·cited 9×
  Medical Logistics and CNA Claimplus appealed a workers' compensation order awarding benefits to the claimant and denying their fraud defense. The court reversed because the compensation judge applied a blanket per se rule excluding surveillance evidence submitted slightly late, r
• Messina v. Kroblin Transp. Sys., Inc.
  903 F.2d 1306· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the jury instructions on the ADEA claim, while potentially complex, did not mislead the jury, and the directed verdict on the slander claim was proper because internal corporate communications do not constitute publication under Oklahoma law.
• United States v. Marshall
  856 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for fleeing from justice requires proof of intent to avoid arrest or prosecution, and that the trial court's finding of such intent was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Golden
  671 F.2d 369· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 9×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in admitting hearsay or physical evidence, nor in failing to admonish the jury.
• Hawn v. State
  300 So. 3d 238· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-07-22 ·cited 8×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding negative impeachment evidence where a witness's prior statement omits material, significant facts that would naturally have been asserted when initially disclosing the alleged crime, and such error is not harmless when the witness'
• Felton v. State
  120 So. 3d 126· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-08-14 ·cited 8×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Felton's robbery and battery convictions, holding that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to call a witness (Catherine Fields) solely for the purpose of impeaching her with a prior inconsistent statement that she had rep
• Roussonicolos v. State
  59 So. 3d 238· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The trial court reversibly erred in ruling that a co-defendant's prior sworn testimony, which tended to exonerate the defendant, was inadmissible hearsay.
• Vargas v. State
  751 So. 2d 665· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-01-12 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed convictions for first-degree murder and armed robbery but reversed the burglary conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in the admission of photographs.
• United States v. Davis
  929 F.2d 554· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding the admissibility of prior convictions, duplicate tapes, transcripts, jury instructions, or the interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Wolak
  923 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction but remanded for resentencing, finding that the upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was not justified by the circumstances presented.
• United States v. Willis
  890 F.2d 1099· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to suppress, for acquittal, or in its jury instructions, and that the admission of rebuttal evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• Vega v. City OF Pompano Beach
  551 So. 2d 594· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-11-08 ·cited 8×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony regarding whether environmental and water conditions at the property created a hazardous or deceptive situation, because the question of whether such conditions were hazardous was within the ordinary under
• M. B. A. F. B. Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, Inc.
  681 F.2d 930· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge erred by failing to strike deposition testimony not based on personal knowledge, which was prejudicial to the defendant.
• Halverson v. Campbell Soup Co.
  374 F.2d 810· 7th Cir.· 1967-01-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exclusion of a key witness's testimony was an abuse of discretion, requiring a new trial for the plaintiff, and that the indemnity clause covered the indemnitee's negligence.
• Fajardo v. State
  193 So. 3d 1019· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-06-08 ·cited 7×
  Pedro Fajardo appeals his conviction for attempted second degree murder. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding cross-examination of the key state witness about his immigr
• Gregory Council v. State
  98 So. 3d 115· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-07-19 ·cited 7×
  The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of a biomechanics expert regarding the causation of the victim's injuries, and this error was not harmless.
• Dixon v. State
  911 So. 2d 1260· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-10-05 ·cited 7×
  Zachary Dixon was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm after a second trial (his first conviction was reversed due to Miranda violations). On appeal, Dixon challenges the admission of a statement in which he allegedly said he would "shoot the mother fucker" minutes bef
• United States v. Brechtel
  997 F.2d 1108· 5th Cir.· 1993-08-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Gattuso's convictions on counts two and four, as a rational jury could not find intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt based on the presented evidence.
• United States v. Olgivie O'Brien Williams
  985 F.2d 634· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-12 ·cited 7×
• United States v. An Chyi LIU
  960 F.2d 449· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding testimony regarding the specific reasons for the defendant's fear, nor in refusing to give a jury instruction on duress, and that the defendant was not entrapped or improperly classified as a manager for sentencing p
• Salter v. Westra
  904 F.2d 1517· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-09 ·cited 7×
  The trial court did not err in refusing the requested jury instruction on mechanical defect or failure, nor in its evidentiary rulings, but did err in submitting the wantonness claim to the jury.
• United States v. Torres-Flores
  827 F.2d 1031· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-10 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the admission of "rogues' gallery" photographs, where the defendant's photo was partially covered but other photos were not, was impermissibly suggestive and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• Davis v. United States
  824 F.2d 549· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that FAA officials did not breach their duty of care to the pilot by providing an allegedly inadequate weather briefing, and that the pilot's own negligence was a contributing factor to the crash.
• Jackson v. Household Fin. Corp. I I I
  236 So. 3d 1170· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-01-31 ·cited 6×
  Testimony by an HSBC Assistant Vice President that the company regularly maintained mortgage loan records at or near the time of events, by persons with knowledge, in the ordinary course of business satisfied the foundation requirements for the business records exception to hears
• Cantore v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., Inc.
  174 So. 3d 1114· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-09-24 ·cited 6×
  Parents appealed a jury verdict defending hospitals in a medical malpractice suit after their daughter suffered permanent brain damage from herniation during transfer to a pediatric neurosurgeon. The court affirmed, holding that testimony from the consulting neurosurgeon regardin
• Mohler v. State
  165 So. 3d 773· Fla. 2d DCA· 2015-05-22 ·cited 6×
  Stephen Mohler appeals his conviction for felony battery, claiming self-defense. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the victim's prior violent acts, which was material to Mohler's self-defense claim.
• Demetrice Armicle McNEAL v. State
  109 So. 3d 268· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-02-28 ·cited 6×
  Under Florida Statute § 90.803(5), a witness's written statement qualifies as past recollection recorded and may be admitted even if the witness cannot testify to its accuracy, provided other evidence establishes it was made when the matter was fresh in the witness's memory and c
• Antoine Faust v. State
  95 So. 3d 421· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-08-15 ·cited 6×
  Antoine Faust appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the admission of his prior violent acts toward his ex-girlfriend, statements from a family friend witness, and jail phone recordings. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms, finding all three categories of
• Nelsenn Simon v. State
  38 So. 3d 793· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-06-09 ·cited 6×
  Nelsenn Simon appeals his second degree murder conviction, challenging the jury instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter, the exclusion of victim propensity evidence, and an alleged improper prosecutorial comment on his right to silence. The Fourth District Cour
• Whitfield v. State
  933 So. 2d 1245· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-07-20 ·cited 6×
  George Whitfield was convicted of burglary after the trial court excluded his exculpatory statement to police that he had permission to enter the apartment. The appellate court reversed the burglary conviction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the St
• Denison v. Swaco Geolograph Co.
  941 F.2d 1416· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-16 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's post-verdict motions, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict for the plaintiff on his ADEA claim.
• United States v. Tamez
  941 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) applies to knowingly making a building available for drug distribution, not just 'crack houses,' and that co-conspirator statements were properly admitted. However, the court reversed the sentencing enhancement for being an organizer.
• Knowlton v. Deseret Med., Inc.
  930 F.2d 116· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 6×
  A manufacturer has a duty to warn foreseeable users of dangers associated with its product, even if the user is sophisticated, and the jury's finding of inadequate warning and proximate causation will be upheld if supported by sufficient evidence.
• Secretary OF Labor v. DeSISTO
  929 F.2d 789· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by limiting the number of witnesses, which prevented a fair determination of the case, and vacated the judgment for a new trial.
• Zamlen v. The City OF Cleveland
  906 F.2d 209· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statistical evidence presented was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination under § 1983, and that the exclusion of female firefighters' testimony, while improper, did not result in substantial injustice. The court affirme
• United States v. Shapiro
  879 F.2d 468· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government breached its pretrial agreement not to use the defendant's prior conviction for impeachment, and this breach was not harmless error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Stitt Spark Plug Co. v. Champion Spark Plug Co.
  840 F.2d 1253· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Stitt failed to present an economically plausible theory of predatory pricing or sufficient evidence of anticompetitive effect from exclusive dealing agreements, thus a reasonable jury could not find for Stitt.
• Nat'l Transp., Inc. v. INN Foods, Inc.
  827 F.2d 351· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a clean bill of lading is insufficient to establish delivery in good condition for goods not visible or open to inspection, and that the exclusion of testimony lacking personal knowledge was not an abuse of discretion.
• Hunter v. Tex. Instruments, Inc.
  798 F.2d 299· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 6×
  A manufacturer's disclaimer of warranties and limitation of remedies, made in a dealer's contract and meeting the UCC's requirements for conspicuousness and notice, is effective against the buyer, even if the manufacturer is not a direct party to the contract.
• Dial v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  780 F.2d 520· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of subsequent fires to show motive, intent, plan, or knowledge, and that the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Vissarion Katapodis and Koula Katapodis v. Koppers Co., Inc.
  770 F.2d 655· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-14 ·cited 6×
  A prime contractor can be held liable under Indiana's Construction Industry Safety Code for injuries to a subcontractor's employee, even without a direct employer-employee relationship, if the prime contractor fails to ensure compliance with the Code.
• Fed. Land Bank OF ST. Louis v. Wilson
  719 F.2d 1367· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the FmHA could reallocate proceeds from a chattel sale due to a mistake, absent prejudice to third parties or prior debtor direction. It also held that the Farm Credit Act preempts state usury laws for Federal Land Banks and that divorce property division is s
• United States v. Taylor
  562 F.2d 572· 8th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that charging and trying the defendant on two distinct but seemingly inconsistent counts did not violate double jeopardy, and the admission of expert testimony and sufficiency of evidence were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Williams
  561 F.2d 859· D.C. Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court denied a sua sponte suggestion for rehearing en banc.
• C & C Prods., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md.
  512 F.2d 1375· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal action was barred by res judicata and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury on attorney's fees.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l DIE Sinkers' Conf.
  402 F.2d 407· 7th Cir.· 1968-10-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board properly awarded disputed work to Technicians and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit cumulative evidence in the unfair labor practice proceeding.
• Cristin v. Everglades Corr. Inst. & Div. of Risk Mgmt.
  310 So. 3d 951· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-12-31 ·cited 5×
  This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the claimant appealed the denial of his claim. The appellate court reversed the decision, finding that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred by refusing to act as a "gatekeeper" and assess the admissibility of expert m