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

• Panaro v. State
  398 So. 3d 1115· Fla. 2d DCA· 2024-12-13 ·cited 2×
  Expert testimony regarding a defendant's reconstructed blood-alcohol level calculated using the Widmark formula is relevant and admissible in a DUI prosecution based on impairment of normal faculties, as it tends to establish whether the defendant consumed enough alcohol to cause
• Mishelle Addys Perdomo Vindel v. Stewart
  388 So. 3d 228· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The trial court erred in admitting Honduran bank records without proper authentication under section 90.902(11), Florida Statutes, because the certification came from an international representative office rather than the actual records custodian located in Honduras, and the lett
• Darius Mitchum v. State
  345 So. 3d 398· Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction for armed robbery, holding that the trial court did not err in allowing the state to call a witness primarily to impeach him with prior inconsistent statements. Even if there was error, it was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guil
• Drejka v. State
  330 So. 3d 1055· Fla. 2d DCA· 2021-12-29 ·cited 2×
  Michael Drejka was convicted of manslaughter for shooting Markeis McGlockton during a dispute over a parking space. Drejka appealed, arguing various errors including the admission of "Williams Rule" evidence and the use of slow-motion video. The appellate court affirmed the convi
• Williams v. State
  300 So. 3d 202· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to use dissimilar demonstrative aids (a hoodie and sunglasses worn by a female prosecutor) during closing argument because they were not substantially similar to those worn by the male shooter and therefore could not provide the ju
• Krysiak v. Shellyann Dawson & H & J Contracting, Inc.
  301 So. 3d 259· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-07-08 ·cited 2×
  A trial court does not abuse its discretion in excluding a treating healthcare provider's new diagnosis disclosed on the eve of trial when the diagnosis contradicts the provider's prior deposition testimony and violates the parties' pretrial stipulation regarding the substance of
• Hetherington v. State
  293 So. 3d 624· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction and life sentence for first-degree murder. The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior threat made by the appellant against the victim, finding it was proven by clear and convincing evidence and its pr
• Union Carbide Corp. v. Font
  41 Fla. L. Weekly S113· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed a final judgment against Union Carbide in a wrongful death lawsuit related to asbestos exposure. The court found that the trial court erred by excluding key affidavits from evidence and by providing an insufficient jury instruction on the "learned int
• Pujol v. State
  290 So. 3d 520· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-11-13 ·cited 2×
  Crystal Pujol appealed her conviction for burglary, grand theft, and criminal mischief. The appellate court affirmed her conviction, finding that while a detective's testimony stating Pujol's guilt was improper, it was harmless error, and sufficient evidence supported the crimina
• Baity v. State
  277 So. 3d 752· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-08-09 ·cited 2×
  A voicemail left by the defendant's mother to the victim, warning her not to go to a house and expressing fear, was properly admitted as an excited utterance where the mother left it shortly after learning of the defendant's threat and while demonstrably under stress.
• Arroyo v. State
  252 So. 3d 374· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the victim's prior consensual sexual activity under the Rape Shield Statute, excluding marginally relevant text messages, or denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, as substantial evidence supported that
• E-Commerce Coffee Club v. Miga Holdings, Inc.
  222 So. 3d 9· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-06-28 ·cited 2×
  E-Commerce Coffee Club appealed a trial court order enforcing a settlement agreement that resolved disputes over the valuation of a coffee-distribution business. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court committed significant evidentiary errors by excluding relev
• Hosea Mack v. State
  106 So. 3d 1011· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-02-20 ·cited 2×
  Hosea Mack appealed his conviction, challenging the admission of latent fingerprint evidence from a crime scene lifted two years prior without direct testimony from the detective who collected the prints. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that
• State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Best Therapy Ctr.
  69 So. 3d 1059· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-09-21 ·cited 2×
  State Farm seeks second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court appellate decision upholding the trial court's striking of State Farm's fraud affirmative defense and prohibiting the jury from hearing testimony that the insured never received treatment from Best Therapy. The Dis
• Crumbie v. State
  16 So. 3d 893· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the defendant's prior statement regarding a previous murder charge when the defendant had opened the door to such evidence by repeatedly challenging the victim's credibility claim that she feared him, and a
• Young v. State
  979 So. 2d 1097· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the ex-girlfriend's statement under the excited utterance exception, as the defense objection was not preserved on appeal.
• Broward Cnty. Sheriff's Off. v. Brody
  969 So. 2d 447· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The Broward County Sheriff's Office appealed a $30.6 million jury verdict awarded to the Brody family for catastrophic injuries sustained by their son Eric in a motor vehicle accident caused by a deputy sheriff. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, rejecting BSO's argument t
• Adams v. State
  783 So. 2d 1226· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a pending dependency proceeding because the testimony was irrelevant to the sole issue of the defendant's intent.
• Lopez v. State
  781 So. 2d 473· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-03-14 ·cited 2×
  David Lopez appeals his conviction and sentence for armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and battery. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but vacated and remanded his sentence on the attempted armed robbery count, finding the 40-year sentence with 30-year minimum mand
• Beerman v. Rollar
  710 So. 2d 93· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-04-15 ·cited 2×
  Margaret Beerman appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident, challenging the trial court's limitation on cross-examination of the defendant's medical expert regarding his prior work for defense counsel. The Fourth District affirmed, hold
• Ada Sandra Kopf v. Skyrm
  993 F.2d 374· 4th Cir.· 1993-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the total exclusion of plaintiff's expert witnesses was an abuse of discretion, and that the introduction of evidence regarding the arrestee's guilt and prior drug use was improper.
• United States v. Smith
  995 F.2d 662· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-03 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for a single conspiracy and no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or denial of severance motions.
• United States v. Gussie L. McCONNELL and Willie R. McConnell
  988 F.2d 530· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting a hearsay statement and evidence of co-conspirators' illegal activities without proper foundation, requiring reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. Fulford
  980 F.2d 1110· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of Deputy Harmening's testimony regarding Richard Elmore's prior consistent statements was permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) and that any other evidentiary errors were harmless. The court also affirmed the $5,000 fine, findi
• United States v. Wales
  977 F.2d 1323· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the admission of the false driver's licenses was an error, it was harmless because the other evidence against the defendant was substantial.
• United States v. Onofre R. Gallegos
  975 F.2d 710· 10th Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding expert testimony or in its handling of a juror's acquaintance with a witness. However, the court remanded for a redetermination of the loss calculation for sentencing purposes and for the district court to consider t
• Gora v. Costa
  971 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Amelia Gora had standing to bring a Section 1983 claim based on the alleged wrongful entry into her home, and that while questioning about Edmund Gora's current incarceration exceeded impeachment limits, it was admissible for other purposes and not reversible
• DeNIEVA v. Reyes
  966 F.2d 480· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) is not a 'person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but its official, Reyes, can be sued in his individual capacity for violating a clearly established right to travel. The judgment against the CNMI was reversed, w
• Ervan Purnell v. Lord
  952 F.2d 679· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the revocation of an inmate's correspondence privilege was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and that no clearly established liberty interest existed for due process claims, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
• United States v. Alphonso Wright
  943 F.2d 748· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior narcotics arrest under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and in admitting a tape-recorded conversation, as both were relevant and properly handled with limiting instructions.
• Krabbenhoft v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  939 F.2d 529· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the statutory interpretation, though harsh, was not legally erroneous.
• United States v. ONE Parcel OF Prop. Located AT 31-33 York St.
  930 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Connecticut's erasure statute does not bar the admission of erased arrest records in a federal forfeiture proceeding, and the exclusion of the appellant's expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• Kaiser Dev. Co. v. City & Cnty. OF Honolulu
  913 F.2d 573· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a directed verdict because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a regulatory taking, specifically that there was no economically viable use of the land.
• United States v. Rolf Anton
  888 F.2d 53· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the Immigration Reform and Control Act's amnesty provisions, as it could not demonstrate the defendant's state of mind or objectively reasonable belief of lawful reentry.
• United States v. Hedgcorth
  873 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the napalm firebombs constructed by the defendants qualified as 'destructive devices' under federal law, and that the trial court's evidentiary rulings did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial.
• United States v. Hernandez
  873 F.2d 925· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding the informant's reliability and the defendant's arrest, nor did it commit plain error in allowing premature testimony about the informant's credibility.
• William A. Brown, M.D. v. Sierra Nev. Mem'l Miners Hosp.
  849 F.2d 1186· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in its findings of fact regarding the discrimination claim.
• United States v. Benson
  760 F.2d 862· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in denying motions to suppress IRS summonses, discover grand jury proceedings, admit certain evidence, or in its voir dire rulings.
• United States v. Muhammad Jalal Deen Akbar
  698 F.2d 378· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge's questioning of individual jurors regarding their deliberations, while potentially problematic, did not constitute reversible error in this specific instance because it was not coercive and was related to a collateral issue.
• Riley v. Univ. OF Lowell
  651 F.2d 822· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or in its conduct, and that the jury verdict for the defendants was proper.
• Hillside Amusement Co. v. Warner Bros. Pictures Distrib. Corp.
  224 F.2d 629· 2d Cir.· 1955-06-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's antitrust claims and denying a new trial, as the findings were supported by evidence and evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion.
• McCray v. State
  418 So. 3d 260· Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-08-13 ·cited 1×
  A trial court commits reversible error by excluding evidence of a prior violent incident when that evidence provides a plausible alternative explanation for injury evidence central to the prosecution's case and would allow the defendant to impeach key prosecution witnesses throug
• Martesha Williams Johnson v. State
  397 So. 3d 1209· Fla. 1st DCA· 2024-12-11 ·cited 1×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence about Johnson's AR-15 and ammunition because the evidence was relevant to show she provided ammunition to the shooter and was not unduly prejudicial. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to
• McKee v. State
  398 So. 3d 1047· Fla. 1st DCA· 2024-11-13 ·cited 1×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing limited testimony defining grooming and general grooming behaviors, and properly refused to instruct on unnatural and lascivious act as a lesser-included offense because the evidence and allegations were identical for both
• Thomas v. State
  363 So. 3d 1153· Fla. 2d DCA· 2023-06-23 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reversed a misdemeanor battery conviction because the trial court improperly allowed a law enforcement officer to testify that the defendant was the primary aggressor. This testimony invaded the jury's province to decide the self-defense claim, and the error w
• Rawe v. Abram LEE Coleman
  354 So. 3d 574· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-11-09 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reversed a jury verdict for the defendant, finding that the trial court erred by preventing the plaintiff from impeaching a witness with a "Root Cause Analysis" report. The court held that the report was not protected by the accident report privilege and that
• Garmon v. State
  313 So. 3d 1202· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-03-31 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the appellant's convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony that the victim made a prior inconsistent statement. Even if the exclusion was an error, it was harmless due to other corroborating evidence.
• Holloway v. State
  313 So. 3d 146· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-12-10 ·cited 1×
  Joseph L. Holloway appealed his conviction for sexual battery, arguing the trial court wrongly excluded hearsay statements that he claimed showed the victim's consent. The appellate court affirmed, finding the statements did not meet the state-of-mind exception to hearsay rules.
• Walding v. State
  307 So. 3d 754· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-11-12 ·cited 1×
  The trial court properly overruled the defendant's objections to cross-examination questions that challenged inconsistencies between his post-arrest statement and trial testimony, as the defendant did not exercise his right to remain silent by providing a statement after arrest.
• Deangelo Marquis Woods v. State
  295 So. 3d 919· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-06-08 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction for manslaughter, robbery, and burglary, holding that the trial court did not err in preventing the defendant from introducing evidence of a deceased witness's prior convictions. The court reasoned that the witness's statements, introduce