The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

. . . inextricably intertwined with the charged offense falls into the category of relevant evidence under section 90.402 . . . See Dorsett, 944 So.2d at 1213 ("Relevant evidence admitted under section 90.402 does not require notice . . . ."); see also Ehrhardt, supra, at § 404.17 ("Because the evidence is admissible under section 90.402, . . . State, 230 So.3d 77, 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("Collateral evidence is admissible under section 90.402 if . . .

KING, v. STATE, 260 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 2018)

. . . variety of reasons, including: (1) the statements were irrelevant and prejudicial under sections 90.401, 90.402 . . .

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE REGULAR- CYCLE REPORT., 258 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 2018)

. . . defense with respect thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.402 . . .

CAMPBELL, v. STATE v. L., 271 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2018)

. . . Section 90.402, Florida Statutes (2018), provides: "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided . . . Dissimilar fact evidence is governed by section 90.402 and has been described as follows: [E]vidence . . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because "it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . .

PERRY, v. STATE, 256 So. 3d 888 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2017). . . .

D. SANDERS, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . State , 162 So.3d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing § 90.402, Fla. Stat.). . . . evidence is ordinarily admissible, there is an exception where the evidence is precluded by law. § 90.402 . . .

PICKETT, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Collateral crimes evidence is admissible under section 90.402 of the Florida Statutes if it is a "relevant . . .

MACOMBER, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . in our analysis is whether this relevant evidence was otherwise inadmissible "as provided by law." § 90.402 . . .

VEACH, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 624 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . Dissimilar fact evidence may be admissible under section 90.402, but like similar fact evidence its admissibility . . .

STRONG, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 428 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. . . .

HAWTHORNE, v. STATE, 248 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

PIERRE, v. STATE, 246 So. 3d 545 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

NEWTON, Jr. v. STATE, 237 So. 3d 386 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . provides that '[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.' " Id. at 753 (quoting § 90.402 . . .

KIRKMAN, v. STATE, 233 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2018)

. . . 90.404, Florida Statutes, whereas the latter is governed by the general rule of relevancy, .in section 90.402 . . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . . Consequently, the trial court’s decision is reviewed under section 90.402 and the general rules of relevancy . . .

SEWELL, v. RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC., 245 So. 3d 822 (Fla. App. Ct. 2017)

. . . ." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2017). . . .

BECKMAN, v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 77 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.402, Fla. . . . Rule notice at trial, it ultimately sought to introduce the witnesses’ testimony only under section 90.402 . . . Because the State’s argument is well taken, we address only the section 90.402 argument. . . . Collateral evidence is admissible under section 90.402 if it is a “relevant and inseparable part of the . . . Collateral crime evidence is admissible as relevant under section 90.402 of the Florida Statutes to show . . .

COFFEY, v. STATE, 228 So. 3d 179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” §§ 90.402 & 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

STEWART, v. D. DRALEAUS,, 226 So. 3d 990 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . §§ 90.401, 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

D. BALDINO, v. STATE, 225 So. 3d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . , or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged, is admissible under section 90.402 . . .

CHARLES, v. STATE, 223 So. 3d 318 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Such evidence is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the . . .

DAVIS, Jr. v. STATE, 217 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See §§ 90.402, 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . See id. § 90.402. Mr. Elmore continued questioning Steward: A. . . .

SCOTT, v. STATE, 218 So. 3d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 90.402, Florida Statutes (2014), provides that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except . . .

MORRIS, v. STATE, 219 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. . . .

OLIVER, v. STATE, 214 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

HUDSON, v. STATE, 213 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . , or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged” is admissible under section 90.402 . . .

TRUEHILL, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 2017)

. . . evidence at issue was a mixture of Williams-rule evidence and evidence that was relevant under, section 90.402 . . . Dissimilar fact evidence is governed by section 90.402 and has been described as follows: [E]vidence . . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . .

PORTILLO, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Therefore, the trial court had no way to know that Portillo’s objection was not to relevance under section 90.402 . . .

D. BOYLE, v. JA CUMMINGS, INC. FARA,, 212 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. . . .

B. LAHENS, v. STATE, 204 So.3d 982 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . examination; - provided, however, the court finds that the testimony is not inadmissible pursuant to s. 90.402 . . .

DAVIS, Jr. v. STATE, 207 So.3d 177 (Fla. 2016)

. . . .” §§ 90.402-403, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

BOWLES, v. STATE, 198 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

OKEECHOBEE AERIE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, INC. v. WILDE, 199 So. 3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (allowing only relevant evidence to be admitted). . . .

LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC. CMS, v. K. BEEKMAN,, 187 So. 3d 318 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Given that the evidence code-in sections 90.401 and 90.402, Florida Statutes (2013), generally provides . . .

BANEGAS- MEMBRAN, v. STATE, 182 So. 3d 865 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

TAYLOR, v. CULVER,, 178 So. 3d 550 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

L. BELL, Jr. v. STATE, 179 So. 3d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . hearing.”), Although this testimony obviously meets the foundational test for admissibility, see § 90.402 . . .

COTTON, v. STATE, 176 So. 3d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . pursuant to section 90.404(2)(b) must still be relevant to a material issue as required by section 90.402 . . .

ROMAN, v. STATE, 165 So. 3d 723 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 90.402. . . .

ORANGE, v. STATE, 149 So. 3d 74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” §§ 90.402-403, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . See §§ 90.402-.403, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . See §§ 90.402-403, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

STEWART, v. STATE, 147 So. 3d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . strict similarity requirement between the charged and collateral offenses had been abrogated by section 90.402 . . .

E. CASTANON, v. STATE Of, 162 So. 3d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . . State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994) (“It is admissible under section 90.402 because ‘it is a relevant . . . that evidence of a prior uncharged hand-to-hand transaction was properly admitted pursuant to section 90.402 . . .

SPIPNIEWSKI, v. STATE, 134 So. 3d 563 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . November 25, 2011, we conclude this collateral crimes evidence was properly admitted under section 90.402 . . . stalking, see § 90.401 (“Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.”); § 90.402 . . . So.2d 1207,1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding that collateral crimes evidence-admitted under section 90.402 . . . admitted based on its relevance, and the admissibility of collateral crimes evidence under section 90.402 . . .

KALISZ, v. STATE, 124 So. 3d 185 (Fla. 2013)

. . . See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2008); Larkins v. State, 655 So.2d 95, 98 (Fla.1995) (citing Wyatt v. . . .

VICTORINO, v. STATE v. D., 127 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, 123 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 2013)

. . . defense with respect thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.402 . . .

SMITH, v. STATE v. D., 126 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . 87, 99 (Fla.2009) (“Dissimilar fact evidence of uncharged misconducl^-which is governed by section 90.402 . . .

GOSCIMINSKI, v. STATE, 132 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2013)

. . . (citing § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2004)). 1. . . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . . Dissimilar fact evidence of uncharged misconduct — which is governed by section 90.402’s general rule . . . abuse its discretion in admitting Debra Thomas’s testimony as relevant evidence pursuant to section 90.402 . . . See §§ 90.401, 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

GRACE, v. STATE, 122 So. 3d 417 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . The trial court properly admitted this evidence as relevant evidence under section 90.402, Florida Statutes . . .

YOUNG, v. STATE, 122 So. 3d 891 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Under section 90.402, Florida Statutes (2007), all relevant evidence is admissible except as provided . . .

A. GREGORY, v. STATE, 118 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 112 So. 3d 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . State, 22 So.3d 619, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also §§ 90.402, 90.403, 90.404(2), Fla. . . .

HILTON, v. STATE, 117 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 2013)

. . . section 90.404 govern similar fact evidence while the general rule of relevancy set forth in section 90.402 . . .

PETRUSCHKE, v. STATE, 125 So. 3d 274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Williams, 992 So.2d 380, 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

RITZ, Jr. v. STATE, 101 So. 3d 939 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged ... is admissible under section 90.402 . . . not, such evidence is not “inextricably intertwined,” and therefore is not admissible under section 90.402 . . .

WALKER, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 495 F. App'x 13 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 90.402. . . .

ROLLE, v. STATE, 93 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged ... is admissible under section 90.402 . . .

DELHALL, v. STATE, 95 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2012)

. . . Miller, 42 So.3d at 224; see also § 90.402-.403, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

L. JACKSON, Jr. v. STATE, 89 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

METAYER, v. STATE, 89 So. 3d 1003 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Williams, 992 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

HARDEN, v. STATE, 87 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Williams, 992 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 88 So. 3d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .1994) (providing that evidence which is inseparable from the crime charged is admissible under section 90.402 . . .

STROHM, v. STATE, 84 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged ... is admissible under section 90.402 . . .

NSHAKA, v. STATE, 92 So. 3d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . . § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

KOPSHO, v. STATE, 84 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2012)

. . . Dissimilar fact evidence may be admissible under section 90.402, but like similar fact evidence its admissibility . . .

ELLERBEE, Jr. v. STATE, 87 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2012)

. . . discretion and its rulings will be affirmed unless there has been abuse of discretion); see also § 90.402 . . .

A. HOLMES, v. STATE, 91 So. 3d 859 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . . inseparable crime evidence is admitted not under 90.404(2)(a) as similar fact evidence but under section 90.402 . . . fact evidence" under section 90.404(2)(a), but was instead relevant evidence admissible under section 90.402 . . . in if defendant cut off victim’s drug supply was relevant and admissible to support motive under s. 90.402 . . . Stat. did not apply, evidence was relevant under s. 90.402 to prove McCray’s motive for charged crimes . . .

D. THOMPSON, v. STATE, 76 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . bad acts which are inextricably intertwined with the crime charged may be admissible under section 90.402 . . .

GEISER, v. STATE, 83 So. 3d 834 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . .

SPECIAL, v. BAUX, M. D. M. D. P. A. P. L., 79 So. 3d 755 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

DeLUISE, v. STATE, 72 So. 3d 248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . State, 641 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citing §§ 90.402, 90.403 and 90.404(2), Fla. . . .

STATE v. WRIGHT,, 74 So. 3d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . being tried, then section 90.404(2)(a) does not apply and the general rule [of relevancy] in section 90.402 . . . to be admissible pursuant to section 90.404(2)(a), they are generally relevant pursuant to section 90.402 . . . Section 90.402 provides that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” . . .

SANTIAGO, v. STATE, 70 So. 3d 720 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . State, 641 So.2d 1356,1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citing §§ 90.402, 90.403 and 90.404(2), Fla. . . .

LEON, v. STATE, 68 So. 3d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

DOWNS, v. STATE, 65 So. 3d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. [ (2009) ]. . . .

McCRAY, II, v. STATE, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011)

. . . section 90.404 govern similar fact evidence while the general rule of relevancy set forth in section 90.402 . . . As explained below, the general rule of relevancy under section 90.402, Florida Statutes (2008), applies . . .

T. J. v. STATE, 57 So. 3d 975 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . defense with respect thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.402 . . .

WALDEN, v. STATE, 57 So. 3d 248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . .

R. THERMIDOR, v. STATE, 55 So. 3d 741 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . In each case, the State filed a notice of intent to offer Williams rule evidence under section 90.402 . . .

J. TRIPOLI, v. STATE, 50 So. 3d 776 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2008); Dorsett, 944 So.2d at 1213; Griffin, 639 So.2d at 968. . . .

THERMIDOR, v. STATE, 50 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The state filed a notice of intent to offer Williams rule evidence under rule 90.402. . . .

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. J. ASHE,, 50 So. 3d 645 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added); Gibson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 47 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . Thus, Vega’s testimony was highly relevant. § 90.402. . . .

McGIRTH, v. STATE, 48 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2010)

. . . court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Sheila’s testimony as relevant pursuant to section 90.402 . . . (citing § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2004)). . . . section 90.404 govern similar fact evidence while the general rule of relevancy set forth in section 90.402 . . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . . Consequently, the general rule of relevancy under section 90.402 governs the instant matter. . . .

ABDOOL, v. STATE, 53 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 2010)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

BRUCE, v. STATE, 44 So. 3d 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The supreme court recognized that relevancy under section 90.402 was not abrogated by the adoption of . . .

MONESTIME, v. STATE, 41 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Evidence that is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged is admissible under section 90.402, . . .

AGUILUZ, v. STATE, 43 So. 3d 800 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The statute that applies to the evidence introduced in this case is section 90.402. . . . Section 90.402 provides that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” . . . to provide notice to the defendant of its intent to rely on relevant evidence admitted under section 90.402 . . . State, 660 So.2d 244, 251 (Fla.1995), and under section 90.402, the evidence need not be similar fact . . . collateral crimes evidence introduced in the defendant’s trial was properly introduced under section 90.402 . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 40 So. 3d 883 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. PARIS INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE Co., 39 So. 3d 466 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 90.402 Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

DOWNS, v. STATE, 40 So. 3d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because ‘it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . .

SPECIAL, v. BAUX, M. D. M. D. P. A. P. L., 52 So. 3d 682 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 90.402, Fla. . . .

MILLER, v. STATE, 42 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2010)

. . . See § 90.402-.403, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

A. WOLFE, v. STATE, 34 So. 3d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Dissimilar fact evidence is governed by the general rule of relevancy in section 90.402, Florida Statutes . . .

FARIAS, v. STATE, 31 So. 3d 909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

STEPHENSON, v. STATE, 31 So. 3d 847 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2002); Gore v. State, 719 So.2d 1197, 1199 (Fla.1998). . . .

A. TWILEGAR, v. STATE, 42 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2010)

. . . And section 90.402 provides that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” . . . § 90.402, Fla. . . .

VICTORINO, v. STATE, 23 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 2009)

. . . It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which . . . hold that the trial court was correct in admitting Graham’s testimony as relevant pursuant to section 90.402 . . . Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible, unless excluded by law. § 90.402, Fla. . . . 90.404, and dissimilar fact evidence is governed by the general rule of relevancy set forth in section 90.402 . . . defendant is being tried, then section 90.404(2)(a) does not apply and the general rule in section 90.402 . . . Dissimilar fact evidence of uncharged misconduct — which is governed by section 90.402’s general rule . . .

C. CARTER, v. STATE, 23 So. 3d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . .” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .