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

• Rozar v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  292 So. 3d 1202· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-03-23 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court reviewed a judgment for a plaintiff in an Engle-progeny tobacco case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit evidence of the plaintiff's unrelated medical history but reversed the denial of a new trial on damages for past pain and suffering, fi
• Cameshia Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc.
  26 So. 3d 600· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-12-02 ·cited 5×
  Cameshia Byrd sued her employer, Wendy's, for HIV discrimination after termination. The trial court admitted a 'no reasonable cause' determination letter from the EEOC into evidence, which the jury relied upon in finding for the employer. The Fourth District reversed, holding tha
• Alexander v. State
  778 So. 2d 1017· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-12-20 ·cited 5×
  James Alexander was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping in the death of Louis Gordon and sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, Alexander challenged the admission of hearsay evidence regarding co-conspirator statements and complained that the trial court failed
• Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. Brickell Bldg. 1 Holding Co., Inc.
  923 F.2d 810· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the lease authorized the landlord's renovations, and the renovations did not constitute a constructive eviction because the landlord acted within its contractual rights and reasonably. The court also affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Lawrence
  699 F.2d 697· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial judge's remarks did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof, the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict, and the admission of the witness's statement was not an abuse of discretion.
• Alonso v. State
  415 So. 3d 826· Fla. 2d DCA· 2025-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence, and any error in designating Alonso as a prison releasee reoffender and habitual felony offender is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Bullington v. State
  311 So. 3d 102· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-05-01 ·cited 4×
  Eric Alan Bullington was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his minor daughter. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's erroneous admission of the victim's prior consistent statements to detectives as hearsay inadmissible under Florida law, but the appellate court f
• Javon Markel Franklin v. State
  286 So. 3d 962· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-01-08 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court found that a photograph of the firearm, though placed on a seat rather than found underneath, was admissible and that the trial court properly considered the weight of the eviden
• Dalia A. Dippolito v. State
  275 So. 3d 653· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-06-05 ·cited 4×
  Dalia Dippolito appeals her third conviction for solicitation to commit first-degree murder of her husband, raising challenges to the admission of uncharged crimes evidence, the denial of an objective entrapment instruction, and the use of bad acts evidence. The Fourth District C
• North v. State
  221 So. 3d 1235· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-06-09 ·cited 4×
  Shane North was convicted of dealing in stolen property after being prohibited from testifying that his supervisors granted him permission to take scrap materials from his employer. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in excluding this testimo
• Helton v. Bank OF Am., N.A.
  187 So. 3d 245· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting oral testimony about business records not in evidence, and that the plaintiff failed to prove compliance with mortgage notice requirements.
• Janard Orange v. State
  149 So. 3d 74· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-09-03 ·cited 4×
  Janard Orange, convicted of first-degree murder and robbery offenses at age 16, appeals his convictions and sentences. The court affirmed his convictions but reversed his mandatory life-without-parole sentence for murder based on Miller v. Alabama, requiring resentencing consider
• Almond v. State
  1 So. 3d 1274· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-02-17 ·cited 4×
  Stephan Jay Almond appeals his conviction for failing to register as a sexual offender, challenging the trial court's admission of hearsay evidence and documents lacking proper foundation. The appellate court reversed the conviction due to cumulative evidentiary errors that viola
• Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Poling
  823 So. 2d 805· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court reversed a final judgment for the plaintiff in an uninsured motorist benefits case, finding the trial court erred by excluding the plaintiff's pre-accident application for social security benefits detailing his physical limitations.
• Sullivan v. State
  751 So. 2d 128· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-01-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defendant to testify that his prior convictions stemmed from guilty pleas and by allowing the State to question the defendant about whether police witnesses were lying.
• Skyles v. State
  670 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-03-20 ·cited 4×
  Cecil Skyles appeals his convictions for sexual battery on two 7-year-old boys, challenging the admission of his confession obtained after ambiguous invocations of his right to silence and the trial court's refusal to allow recross-examination of a victim. The court reverses, fin
• United States v. Kingston
  971 F.2d 481· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony and excluding other evidence, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Bland
  961 F.2d 123· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or admitting evidence, and that the life sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) was constitutional.
• Haskell v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  930 F.2d 816· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that transaction reports prepared during an FNS investigation are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and that the store owner received adequate due process. The court affirmed the district court's decision upholding the permanent d
• United States v. Kuennen
  901 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant 'caused' the use of the mails for delivery of obscene material, even though intercepted and delayed, and that venue was proper. Constitutional and evidentiary challenges were also rejected.
• United States v. Burton
  898 F.2d 595· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or in denying an absent witness instruction, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Cruz
  894 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in excluding a sentencing transcript and inconsistent versions of an investigation report.
• United States v. J.L.K., JR.
  880 F.2d 993· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting federal regulations concerning administrative remedies into evidence, as they were relevant to the appellant's defense of necessity.
• Warner R. Waddell and Jeanette I. Waddell v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  841 F.2d 264· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the Tax Court's determination that the principal of the promissory note did not constitute true debt for tax purposes and upheld the exclusion of an appraisal report as a business record.
• United States v. Ramirez
  823 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under the Hobbs Act, the trial court did not err in refusing a new jury or in denying a late request to subpoena an expert witness.
• United States v. Olsowy
  819 F.2d 930· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 'exculpatory no' defense does not apply to statements made in relation to a claim against the government, and that multiple convictions for identical false statements made in response to the same questions are impermissible.
• United States v. Hawley
  768 F.2d 249· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of an expert witness regarding legal interpretations and the reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs was not an abuse of discretion, and that the attorney's arrest for contempt in front of the jury, while improper
• Nan E. Matthews v. Worthen Bank & Tr. Co.
  741 F.2d 217· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not apply to credit reports obtained solely for a commercial transaction, and the district court did not err in excluding evidence.
• United States v. Maurizio P. Rendini
  738 F.2d 530· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the mail fraud statute was applicable and constitutional, and that Rendini's various evidentiary and constitutional objections lacked merit.
• United States v. Algie Leonard Olsen
  589 F.2d 351· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act's dismissal sanctions were not yet effective for the delay in retrial, and the admission of prior acts testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Ruelas-Altamirano
  463 F.2d 1197· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing expert testimony, denying a mistrial, or in its handling of the interpreter.
• United States v. Cenephat
  115 F.4th 1359· 11th Cir.· 2024-09-23 ·cited 3×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a drive-by shooting and prior convictions, nor in applying sentencing enhancements for attempted murder and reckless flight.
• Schluck v. State
  329 So. 3d 231· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-11-03 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for burglary and sexual battery, finding that the trial court improperly admitted a recording of the victim's statement to the police. The court held the statement was inadmissible hearsay because it did not qualify as an excited utteranc
• Newby v. State
  272 So. 3d 862· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-05-29 ·cited 3×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding reverse Williams rule evidence when the defendant offers evidence of similar crimes committed by another person to show the defendant did not commit the charged offense, if the evidence would have been admissible under the Williams
• Simmons v. State
  257 So. 3d 1121· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-10-15 ·cited 3×
  The trial court properly admitted deposition testimony from the charged offense at a pretrial similar-fact hearing because hearsay is generally admissible in pretrial proceedings, the State provided adequate notice, and the collateral-crime witnesses were subject to cross-examina
• Antonio F. Defilippo M.D. & S. Fla. Psychiatric Servs., Inc. v. Curtin
  255 So. 3d 351· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-09-05 ·cited 3×
  The trial court erred in three respects: (1) precluding the physician from testifying that he was absent when the patient was admitted and unaware of the patient's existence, as such testimony was relevant to whether he negligently supervised the ARNP; (2) instructing the jury th
• Pierre v. State
  246 So. 3d 545· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-05-16 ·cited 3×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the second ski mask as relevant evidence, and Pierre's arguments regarding unfair prejudice and expert testimony were not preserved for appeal because he failed to assert the specific legal bases for his objections at tria
• Taide Wiston Asencio, JR. v. State
  244 So. 3d 294· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-04-04 ·cited 3×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the jail call recording based on the jail system's three-tiered verification process (booking number, PIN, and voice recognition software) combined with corroborating facts referenced in the call, and did not commit fundam
• Mathis v. State
  208 So. 3d 158· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-10-14 ·cited 3×
  Kelly Mathis, an attorney who advised Allied Veterans on operating internet cafes, was convicted of RICO and gambling-related offenses. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Mathis's legal research
• Daniela Floyd v. Bank OF Am., N.A.
  194 So. 3d 1071· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-06-24 ·cited 3×
  Bank of America appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in its favor in a mortgage foreclosure action against Daniela Floyd. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Bank of America's standing to foreclose and the a
• Garcia v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  807 F.3d 1228· 11th Cir.· 2015-08-19 ·cited 3×
  GEICO denied coverage for a vehicle collision based on lack of permission, and the district court improperly excluded evidence of prior judicial decisions and evolving Florida law regarding the implied consent doctrine when determining whether GEICO acted in bad faith. The Eleven
• Markel Latrae Bass v. State
  147 So. 3d 1033· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-08-20 ·cited 3×
  A defendant's statements to his mother about a pending plea offer are admissible even if related to plea negotiations, because such statements were not made "in connection with" plea offers as contemplated by Florida Evidence Code § 90.410 when the defendant had no reasonable exp
• Abel Martinez v. State
  125 So. 3d 985· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-06-26 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Abel Martinez's conviction for resisting an officer with violence, finding that the prosecution improperly questioned witnesses and made closing arguments about Martinez's retention of a civil attorney to sue the City of Pembro
• Bowen v. State
  868 So. 2d 541· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-09-10 ·cited 3×
  Bernice Bowen appeals her convictions for accessory after the fact to escape and first-degree murder of two police officers following retrial after a previous reversal. The court affirms her convictions and sentence, finding sufficient evidence of all elements of the accessory af
• Malarkey v. Texaco, Inc.
  983 F.2d 1204· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing retaliation claims related to promotion denials, but properly excluded non-promotion retaliation claims due to delay. It also affirmed evidentiary rulings and the jury's determination regarding grade 10 positions.
• Bell v. AT & T
  946 F.2d 1507· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding rebuttal testimony crucial for demonstrating pretext, thereby denying the plaintiff a full opportunity to prove her discrimination claim.
• Wisinski v. State
  508 So. 2d 504· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-06-10 ·cited 3×
  James Wisinski appealed his conviction, claiming the trial court erred by excluding character evidence regarding his reputation for truth and veracity. The Fourth District affirmed the conviction, holding that the reputation testimony was properly excluded because it was based on
• Miller v. Janay Conney
  413 So. 3d 306· Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the RFA cost estimate and Dr. Saatman's corresponding testimony regarding future medical expenses because the estimate was new evidence disclosed mid-trial after discovery had closed, constituting surprise and trial by ambush und
• Brita v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.
  415 So. 3d 252· Fla. 2d DCA· 2025-06-18 ·cited 2×
  When an insurer completely denies coverage under a replacement-cost policy and is sued for breach of contract, the payment-splitting provision in the policy and § 627.7011(3)(a)—which permits initial payment of only actual cash value with the remainder withheld until work is perf
• Yinger v. State
  409 So. 3d 201· Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-04-30 ·cited 2×
  Manual strangulation, combined with blunt-force injuries and evidence of repositioning and continued lethal force after the victim lost consciousness, provides sufficient evidence of premeditation under the Bush standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review.