A Guide to the Evidence Rules in Florida
The Florida Rules of Evidence are a comprehensive set of guidelines that govern the admissibility, relevance, and materiality of evidence presented during legal proceedings in Florida. Essentially, these rules dictate what types of information can be considered by a judge or jury in a court of law. Designed to ensure fairness and justice, the Florida Rules of Evidence are not just "rules" but a systematic way of maintaining an organized and coherent process for handling information issues in a legal context.
One reason these rules are crucial is that they ensure a level playing field for all parties involved in legal actions and proceedings. If one party is allowed more leeway in the types of evidence it presents, the other party does not stand a fair chance at a fair trial. The Florida Rules of Evidence serve as a reference point for judges and attorneys alike, helping to avoid confusion about what is permissible.
In civil cases, for instance, where the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, the Florida Rules of Evidence provide clear guidelines on the types of evidence that can be utilized to support the claims . Similarly, in criminal cases, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the extensive set of guidelines offers protections for the accused while also maintaining the state’s ability to present a case.
The rules cover numerous areas, such as relevance (Sections 90.401 to 90.403), hearsay (Sections 90.801 to 90.806), privileges (Sections 90.501 to 90.505), and expert witnesses (Sections 90.702 to 90.705), among others. Each section addresses a key area of evidence admissibility, ensuring a streamlined process that promotes efficiency and reduces courtroom delays.
Many consider the Florida Rules of Evidence to be fairly organized; however, navigating them can be daunting for someone who is not accustomed to legal jargon and terminology. Understanding how to utilize these rules is essential for legal professionals, and a grasp of the general tenets can be invaluable for anyone involved in a legal proceeding in Florida.
Fundamental Definitions and Terminology
Evidentiary terms and notions appear regularly in various settings, not only courtrooms (e.g., news articles, movies, TV shows, etc.). Those who are frequently faced with understanding these concepts do so by virtue of the profession or role they play in a legal-related matter. Criminal defense attorneys are the most familiar with these terms, followed by prosecuting attorneys and various judges. To more effectively carry out their duties, we provide a few key definitions of common terms and phrases used in evidentiary matters.
"Witness" – Generally speaking, a witness is a person whose trial testimony or the statement of whom, pursuant to deposition, is recorded and may be offered in court for evidentiary purposes. Some witnesses are permissible (with few exceptions) to testify at trial; others are not. The determination of who qualifies as a proper witness is one that must be made on a case-by-case basis.
"Exclusionary Rule" – A doctrine that generally states that evidence procured illegally or improperly should not be authorized at trial or protected by attorney-client or other applicable privilege.
"Authentication" – The process of attesting to certain information that is recorded and/or presented in trial.
"Privileged" – Within the context of evidentiary terms, a document or communication that is protected from disclosure because it is considered confidential in nature. As a general rule, any communication between an attorney and a client that is related to the case at hand, is protected pursuant to the attorney-client confidentiality privilege.
"Best evidence" – In the evidentiary context, the original version of a document, record, a tangible object or material from which a copy is obtained for review or presentation.
"Witness Protection" – a program available through Federal and State law enforcement entities that serves to protect individuals who may have witnessed or are otherwise part of a case and are considered to be particularly vulnerable to harm directly or indirectly as a result.
Rules for Admissibility of Evidence in Florida
Determining the admissibility of evidence under Florida law can be a complex process, but it essentially boils down to two key concepts: relevance and reliability. F.S. 90.401 – Statement for the purposes of this article, we will define "relevance" as evidence which tends to prove or disprove a material fact. If the evidence is not relevant, it will generally not be admissible. Sometimes, the relevance of evidence might be used to support a legal presumption. F.S. 90.301. The concept of admissibility refers to the exclusion or restriction of evidence only for certain purposes. Generally, an objection to evidence in a Florida civil or criminal proceeding is a legal ruling with respect to its admissibility in that particular proceeding. Judicially "admitted" evidence is evidence which is relevant to the hip. F.S. 90.403. Basically, if the evidence is relevant, it should be admitted as long as it is reliable. Another thing to consider is that just because something is made known during discovery does not mean it will be admitted in court. A judge usually makes that decision based on reliability and how it might prejudicially affect the proceedings. F.S. 90.401. So, a judge will use a discretionary ruling when deciding whether or not to admit evidence. Presumptively, all relevant evidence will be admitted in a court proceeding without restriction or limitation (F.S. 90.402) unless it meets an exception to the rule.
Rules for Hearsay in Florida
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is generally inadmissible in court due to concerns about the reliability of the information. The rationale for the rule is that it’s unfair to base a legal decision on statements that the other party has not had an opportunity to challenge through cross-examination.
There are, however, many common exceptions to the rule. The Florida Rules of Evidence contain some of the most common hearsay exceptions. The general rule for these is that the out-of-court statement was so important and reliable that the hearsay rule should not exclude it.
While there are many rules for hearsay, they can be broadly grouped by category. We will briefly examine each of them here:
- Spontaneous Statement: This is a statement that is made while "excited" or "startled." For example, if a car struck another vehicle, a witness may immediately say to another observer, "Wow, that was a bad accident." That statement would likely fall into this category. The importance of the statement and its timing render it an exception to the hearsay rule.
- Statement Against Interest: A statement that is harmful to the person making the statement is an admission. As with the examples above, statements that a person makes that are harmful to themselves will generally be admissible.
- Declaration: This category includes a wide variety of statements. A few common exceptions include ones made about someone’s reputation, statements that were made spontaneously or immediately, statements that are made contrary to someone’s position, statements against a person’s interest, and the statement of the declarant being dead. There are many other exceptions as well.
- Past Recollection Recorded: This is a written or recorded statement made by a witness. For example, you might ask a witness, "What did you see in the incident?" If the witness has a memory lapse, but can recall the incident through refreshing her memory with a written or recorded statement, the statement may be admitted.
- Prior Inconsistent Statement: A witness may have previously made a statement that is different from his or her testimony in court. Such a statement is admissible to challenge the credibility of the witness.
- Prior Consistent Statement: This is a statement made before the witness had any incentive to fabricate testimony. In other words, if the witness made a statement that is consistent with his or her testimony, and there was no incentive for fabrication, then the statement is likely suitable as evidence.
These are just a few of the common exceptions to the hearsay rule under the Florida Rules of Evidence.
Privileges under the Florida Rules of Evidence
Florida’s Rules of Evidence classify the various privileges recognized by the state and the situations in which these privileges apply. There are several types of privileges that apply in Florida, limiting otherwise admissible evidence that might violate the protected communication or relationship. The Florida Evidence Code recognizes and governs the following privileges:
•Attorney-client privilege, which prohibits attorneys and their employees from disclosing communications made to them by clients or potential clients when the client commercially consults the attorney.
•Marital communication privilege, which allows a spouse to protect the contents of a communication made to him or her by another spouse from discovery and use in court.
•Physician-patient privilege , which prevents physicians and the staff members of physician’s offices and hospitals from testifying about, or producing documents related to information that they obtained in the course of treating a patient.
•Parental privilege, which allows parents to prevent their children from being compelled to testify in a civil or criminal court case.
•Clergy privilege, which allows members of the clergy such as priests and ministers to avoid testifying about confessions and similar religious secrets.
Florida is one of the jurisdictions that does not recognize a privilege for journalists who seek to protect the identity of their confidential sources.
Unique Rules Regarding Witness Testimony in Florida
In a world constantly inundated by information, it’s important for legal professionals to have an easy way to access the applicable Florida Rules of Evidence. This is where the Florida Rules of Evidence Cheat Sheet comes in.
The primary rule that governs who may testify as a witness is Florida Statute § 90.601, which provides that "[e]very person is qualified to be a witness except:
(1) Persons who are not of sufficient mental or moral capacity to receive just impression and retain impressions respecting the matters as to be able to testify accurately; and
(2) Children, if it is made to appear by the testimony that they are not capable of receiving just impressions and relating them truly." In the case of a child, it is not required that a Rule of Court be adopted to establish that the child meets this qualification. See Maddox v. State, 55 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1951); Ransom v. State, 193 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). As such, generally, no formal ruling is issued by the Court, but the proponent must be able to lay a foundation for the witness’ ability to testify.
A witness must be competent to testify at the time he or she testifies, and may not even have been competent at the time of the event at issue. If it can be established that the witness was previously incompetent, this may be overcome with evidence that the witness subsequently was restored to competency prior to testifying.
With regard to expert testimony, the general rule is set forth in Florida Statute § 90.702, which provides that "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a factual issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion or otherwise." In order for expert testimony to be admissible, "the witness must be shown to be experienced in the science or specialty under consideration and his field of expertise must be sufficiently associated with that of the expert so that his testimony will aid the trier of fact." Sweeney v. B&R Corp., 658 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(quoting City of Ocala v. Burns, 625 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)).
In addition, "[t]he subject matter of the expert’s testimony must be within the field of the expert’s competence." Id. As explained by the Florida Supreme Court in Bender v. The Florida Board of Dentistry, 538 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1989), "[i]t is not the function of the trial court, in passing on the admissibility of evidence, to weigh such evidence, or to decide its credibility, but only to determine whether the evidence satisfies the requirements of the applicable sections of the Evidence Code; that is, whether the evidence is relevant, material, and competent."
As a general rule, the statements made by a witness or deponent are hearsay—the statements being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. See McCormick on Evidence § 249, p. 767 (4th ed. 1996). If such statements are offered by the proponent to show that the witness or deponent made the statements, the proponent is not offering the statements for the truth of the matter that is asserted in the statement, and such statements may be considered non-hearsay, or hearsay falling under an exception to the hearsay rule.
If such statements are made during a judicial proceeding and are written or recorded, they are generally considered statements under oath. Such statements may be considered admissions, or prior inconsistent statements, and may be admissible as substantive evidence if the witness is available for cross-examination. See § 90.801(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; McCormick on Evidence, supra.
Rules for Documentary Evidence in Florida
The best evidence rule, set forth in Florida Statute Section 90.952, requires the original to be produced at trial when the party seeks to introduce a document. However, the admissibility of a duplicate is governed by Florida Statute Section 90.953. Duplicates will be admitted to the same extent as an original unless:
- (1) A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or
- (2) There is a dispute as to the amount in issue , or
- (3) The circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
There is a preference in Florida against admitting duplicates:
Authenticating a document requires establishing its genuineness, which can be done by showing circumstantial evidence of authenticity or by establishing a chain of custody.
A witness with knowledge of the event may testify that the document is a true and correct copy of the document he or she reviewed.
The testimony of an out-of-court witness with knowledge of the event may also be sufficient.
Extrinsic conditions may also be presented to establish the authenticity of the writing.