Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...r accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. However, relevancy is not the only test for the admission of such evidence. Relevance must be weighed against the prejudice it would cause. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), states in pertinent part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presenta...

...ct in issue."); see also Heuring, 513 So.2d at 123 (when faced with claim that prior crimes are too remote to be relevant, the trial court "must consider not the passage of time alone, but the effect of the passage of time on the evidence"). [6] See § 90.403, Fla....

...isfy subsection 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989), and the child is able to testify fully at trial, must the hearsay statements be excluded solely because they are prior consistent statement by the child, or is the test for exclusion that found in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989)? 582 So.2d at 1228....

...t trial. However, we also agree with the court below that this is not the end of the inquiry. As that court stated: Although the child's statements cannot be excluded as hearsay, the statements, like any other evidence, are subject to analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). Thus, the defendant can move for exclusion of the evidence under section 90.403 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." 582 So.2d at 1228 (emphasis added). Thus, although the admission of a child victim's hearsay statement is not excludable as hearsay or as a prior consistent statement *668 under the statute, the admission of the statement is subject to the balancing test found in section 90.403....

...n language of the statute, while the Pardo court took account of the mechanism which already existed in the Florida evidence code for excluding the needless or prejudicial presentation of cumulative evidence. Of course, the same concerns embodied in section 90.403 are those which underlie the common law rule against prior consistent statements....

...orker Terry Vazquez, and Doctor Raquel Bild-Libbin. [4] Merci Restani, Dawn Bralow, and Dr. Bild-Libbin. [5] See generally Taylor Mattis, Stare Decisis Among and Within Florida's District Courts of Appeal, 18 Fla.St.U.L.Rev. 143, 155-160 (1990). [6] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in relevant part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presenta...

...As we stated in Williamson: Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1988). In reviewing testimony about a collateral crime that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, [Florida Statutes (1999),] a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...guilty for murdering Sparrow III. The defendant's state of mind at the time he made the statement was relevant to prove a material fact. See Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995). Stephens also argues the statement was unduly prejudicial. Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), relevant testimony may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the likelihood of unfair prejudice....

...performed by the trial judge who is present and best able to compare the two); Lewis v. State, 570 So.2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding the trial judge should be given wide discretion in determining whether evidence should be admitted over a section 90.403 objection)....

...Yet we can find in this record no valid reason for showing the gruesome photographs to Estes once the body had been identified, especially when the only issue contested at trial was Smith's reason for killing Cascio. The evidence also was cumulative and unfairly prejudicial. § 90.403, Fla....

...That evidence would have been admissible to support Smith's credibility provided that the proper foundation was established. However, the trial court remains free to exercise discretion to limit such evidence consistent with the policies of the Florida Evidence Code. See §§ 90.403-.405, Fla....

...approximately one week later. After entertaining argument from all counsel, the court determined that Carr's expected testimony was relevant to placing the defendants with the Camry and to Carr's credibility, and, after weighing such testimony under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), the court determined that such testimony would be admissible....

...- 15 -  We agree with the district court that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony. The rules of evidence provided the trial court with no discretion to exclude the contested cross-examination. Section 90.403 of the Florida Statutes permits trial courts to exclude only evidence in which the “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...We held that "[a] third person's attempt to influence a witness is inadmissible on the issue of the defendant's guilt unless the defendant has authorized the third party's action," and we barred the evidence because its probative value was "far outweighed by its prejudicial impact." Id. at 536-37; see § 90.403, Fla....

...n properly admitted as relevant evidence because it was an instrument which could have caused the victim's wounds, based on the medical examiner's testimony and the other evidence linking this knife to Ramirez." We review a trial court's ruling on a section 90.403 objection on an abuse of discretion standard....

...Martin testified that Robles had a blood alcohol level of .14. [9] Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971). [10] Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1999), provides: "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1999), provides in pertinent part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presen...

...`[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.'" Sliney v. State, 944 So.2d 270, 286 (Fla.2006) (quoting §§ 90.401, 90.403, Fla. Stat.). "[P]roper application of section 90.403 requires a balancing test by the trial judge....

...drive, and that is the very result prohibited by the rules of evidence. Id. at 671 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the court found the error harmless due to the "overwhelming nature" of the evidence supporting the defendant's guilt. Id. at 672. [6] SECTION 90.403 BALANCING The question presented, as in Old Chief, requires us to balance the State's and a criminal defendant's legitimate interests at trial. The appropriate framework is found in section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code, which is in essence a restatement of Federal Rule 403, and provides, in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudic...

...However, the defendant also has a legitimate concern in being judged only on the crime charged, and not being convicted on an improper ground due to the admission of evidence that carries unfairly prejudicial baggage. On the specific issue before us, Professor Ehrhardt has commented that: Section 90.403 does not require that the prosecution accept every defense offer to stipulate to a fact or an issue. Counsel is entitled to present her evidence in the manner she chooses and to have the trier of fact know the details of what occurred. However, despite the rule that a party is *888 not required to stipulate to a fact, section 90.403 is applicable to the evidence offered to prove that fact or issue....

...in a civil suit. Id. at 139-42. However, in noting that Florida courts have followed our decision in Parker holding that the defendant's offer to stipulate is not binding on the State, Professor Ehrhardt points out that virtually no analysis of the section 90.403 balancing process has occurred in most of those cases. Id. at 143 n. 37 (observing that in applying Parker, "[t]here has been no analysis of the 90.403 balancing in these decisions")....

...m exceeding one year .... [to] possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm.... 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [3] Prior to adoption of the Florida Evidence Code, Florida case law had recognized a test similar to that now contained in Federal Rule 403 and section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...l "undue" prejudice resulted from the admission of a prior record reflecting the particular substantive offense the defendant had previously committed. [7] The State noted at oral argument that it was "hard to tell" if the trial court engaged in the section 90.403 balancing process mandated by our holding in Parker....

...materiality. To be admissible, evidence first must be relevant to a particular material issue to be proved. This basic framework is of special importance when the evidence to be admitted poses an unusual danger of unfair prejudice to an accused. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ions: whether the defendant committed the collateral crime; whether the collateral crime meets the similarity requirements necessary to be relevant; whether the collateral crime is too remote, so as to diminish its relevance; and whether pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...Admissibility of Abortion Evidence Walker argues that the evidence concerning his desire that Ms. Jones abort their child was not relevant to showing premeditation or his motive to commit these murders and, even if relevant, it was inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), because its weak probative value was outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect....

...A few weeks subsequent to the support order becoming final, Walker murdered his son and ex-girlfriend after arguing with her about the support award. As to Walker's alternative claim that, although relevant, the admission of this evidence was unfairly prejudicial to him, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), reads: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible. We explained the balancing test which a trial court must perform under section 90.403 in State v....

...Indeed, the same item of evidence may be admissible in one case and not in another, depending upon the relation of that item to the other evidence. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, § 185 (3d ed. 1984). Professor Ehrhardt explains the application of the statute as follows: Although Section 90.403 is mandatory in its exclusion of this evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by any of the enumerated reasons. The court must weigh the proffered evidence against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion. *310 In excluding certain relevant evidence, Section 90.403 recognizes Florida law. Certainly, most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions....

...Contrary to Walker's suggestion, the prosecutor did not use this evidence to needlessly inflame the jury or provide an improper basis for their verdict. Consequently, we reject Walker's claim and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in performing the section 90.403 balancing test and admitting Walker's statements to Detective Cunningham as relevant evidence against him....

...Williams' testimony that drowning was a cause of death and that Ms. Jones was alive when she was thrown into the water, is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she was conscious. Consequently, Dr. Williams' testimony was admissible under sections 90.401 and 90.403 as relevant and probative of the struggle and panic Ms....

...fact" evidence or "dissimilar fact" evidence, its admissibility is determined by its relevancy. The trial court must utilize a balancing test to determine if the probative value of this relevant evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); Williams v. State, 117 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1960). This is merely an application of the general rule that where improper prejudice outweighs probative value, even relevant evidence should be excluded. § 90.403, Fla....

...fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (1991). "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...90.703 Opinion on ultimate issue. — Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. These two sections are subject, however, to the limitations of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1985), which provides in relevant part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...An opinion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused is not admissible. See Lambrix v. State, 494 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 1986); Spradley v. State, 442 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Although section 90.703 would appear to permit such an opinion, such testimony is precluded on the basis of section 90.403....

...He also claims that the only purpose for the slides' re-introduction during the penalty phase was to arouse overwhelming sympathy for the victim. Accordingly, he contends that their probative value was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial impact. § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...We begin our analysis with the basic proposition that in order to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (1995). Relevant evidence is defined as evidence "tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Id. § 90.401. However, the admission of relevant evidence is restricted by the mandate of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), which provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Section 90.403 compels the trial court to engage in this balancing test....

...Gore's credibility; and (2) because the inquiry was within the scope of Gore's testimony on direct. Even if the cross-examination constituted potential impeachment or was within the scope of direct, the evidence must still pass the balancing test of section 90.403 to be admissible....

...ve the identity of the alleged perpetrator. In so holding, we conclude that due process is satisfied by weighing the probative value of the evidence of prior acts of child molestation against its potential for unfair prejudice, which is compelled by section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005). Application of section 90.403 in determining admissibility ensures that section 90.404(2)(b) does not open the door to introduction of any and all propensity evidence in sexual molestation cases....

...concluded that in enacting this new statute the Legislature was attempting to overrule or modify Saffor v. State, 660 So.2d 668 (Fla.1995), and Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122 (Fla.1987). The trial court also concluded that the Legislature intended section 90.403 to apply to evidence admissible under section 90.404(2)(b), requiring an evaluation of whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice. The trial court ruled that section 90.404(2)(b) governed the admissibility of Chambers' testimony and rejected McLean's argument that the statute violated his due process rights. The trial court determined, however, that pursuant to section 90.403, admission of all of Chambers' testimony would be overly prejudicial....

...econd District held that section 90.404(2)(b) does not violate due process when applied in a case in which identity is not an issue because the new statute does not simply open the courthouse to all propensity evidence. As demonstrated in this case, section 90.403 still requires the trial court judge to act as a gatekeeper, weighing the probative value and the prejudicial effect of the proffered testimony....

...As with *1256 any other relevant evidence, evidence of a prior bad act is inadmissible if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2005); see also Williams, 621 So.2d at 415 ("[E]vidence of other crimes that is relevant and therefore not barred by section 90.404(2)(a), may be excluded under section 90.403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice.")....

...However, as we later explained, "we did not specifically address the question of how similar the charged offense and the collateral sex crime must be in order for the collateral crime evidence to be admissible." Saffor, 660 So.2d at 671. Nor did we discuss the additional requirement in section 90.403 that hinges admissibility on whether the probative value of the evidence is "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, needless presentation of cumulative evidence, or misleading the jury." We hav...

...We did not discuss the relaxed standard of admissibility alluded to in Heuring. Instead we concluded that the charged and collateral offenses were "strikingly similar" and therefore met the "strict standards of the Williams rule." Id. at 1353-54. We did not engage in a detailed weighing of the similar fact evidence under section 90.403....

...Under the Florida Evidence Code, chapter 90, Florida Statutes, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403. As the State conceded at oral argument, evidence that is admissible under section 90.404(2)(b) remains subject to weighing under section 90.403....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403. The similarity of the collateral act of molestation and charged offense is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403....

...Due Process and Section 90.404(2)(b) Collateral crime evidence violates a defendant's right to due process if it is so prejudicial that it denies the defendant a fair trial. See LeMay, 260 F.3d at 1027; Castillo, 140 F.3d at 883. Like the federal courts applying federal rule 403, we conclude that the application of section 90.403 should always render evidence inadmissible when it has such a prejudicial effect....

...In other words, if the potential prejudice is so great that admission of the collateral crime evidence will violate the defendant's right to a fair trial, then the probative value of the evidence must be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403. As Judge Altenbernd observed in the decision below: [T]he new statute does not simply open the courthouse to all propensity evidence. As demonstrated in this case, section 90.403 still requires the trial court judge to act as a gatekeeper, weighing the probative value and the prejudicial effect of the proffered testimony....

...onclude that this new rule of evidence violates the fundamental fairness required by due process. McLean, 854 So.2d at 802. [10] The trial court's gatekeeping function is critical. In every case, the trial court must conduct the weighing required by section 90.403....

...prior acts; and (4) the presence or lack of intervening circumstances. This list is not exclusive. The trial courts should also consider other factors unique to the case. Factors other than the potential for unfair prejudice are also pertinent in a section 90.403 analysis....

...Finally, if requested, the trial court shall give an appropriate cautionary instruction both at the time the evidence is presented and in its final charge to the jury. E. This Case McLean asserts that even if section 90.404(2)(b) is constitutional, the trial court erred in admitting the prior acts of child molestation under section 90.403. *1263 We conclude that the trial court thoroughly examined the proffered evidence and did exactly what was required under section 90.403....

...identity of the defendant is not an issue and the provision is used to admit evidence to corroborate the alleged victim's testimony. We further conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the limited portions of Chambers' testimony under section 90.403....

...sible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. Fed. R. Evid 413(a). The Eighth Circuit concluded that its analysis of rule 413 also applies to rule 414. See Mound, 149 F.3d at 800 n. 2. [9] Rule 403 is similar to section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...to address this issue here: Identity has always been the most troublesome issue confronted by the Williams rule. See generally Rawls, 649 So.2d at 1353; Morman [v. State, 811 So.2d 714, 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002),] (Altenbernd, J., concurring). Whether section 90.403 is sufficient to monitor Williams rule evidence in cases involving identity, or whether due process requires a special rule of "striking similarity" and shared unique characteristics in cases of disputed identity remains an open question in our minds....

...(found in the trailer at the horse farm) which was stained with blood stipulated to belong to neither Chavez nor Jimmy Ryce. Chavez asserts that, even if the mattress had any probative value, it was clearly outweighed by the prejudicial impact. See § 90.403, Fla....

...sal where it is "completely impossible ... to say that the State has demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt" that the error complained of "did not contribute to" the defendant's conviction. Id. (quoting Chapman, 386 U.S. at 26, 87 S.Ct. 824). Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or potential to mislead the jury....

...Although the picture of appellant with a sawed-off shotgun committing a bank robbery was relevant to possession of the murder weapon prior to the crimes here, we believe that any evidence of the bank robbery or the picture's probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...fact" evidence or "dissimilar fact" evidence, its admissibility is determined by its relevancy. The trial court must utilize a balancing test to determine if the probative value of this relevant evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...We agree with the trial court that the substance of what was said on the videotape concerned the crime for which appellant was charged and tended to prove a material fact; thus it was relevant evidence as defined by section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1995). [12] In respect to the objection based upon section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), [13] Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1200, 117 S.Ct. 1561, 137 L.Ed.2d 708 (1997), is applicable. In Williamson, we recognized that proper application of section 90.403 requires a balancing test by the trial judge....

...We concluded in Cave that the reenactment video was irrelevant, cumulative, and unduly prejudicial. In contrast, the video in this case was not a reenactment and was relevant to the issue of appellant's guilt, and the trial court properly performed the balancing test pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statute (1995)....

...ath sentence is disproportionate. [11] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [12] Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1995), provides: "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." [13] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." [14] § 394.467, Fla....

...the ordinary understanding of the jury. Johnson v. State, 393 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 1980). This view is consistent with the first requirement of section 90.702, that the opinion evidence be helpful to the trier of fact, as well as the provisions of section 90.403, that the danger of prejudice may outweigh the value of the evidence....

...e expert testimony first establish that the subject can support an expert opinion with a reasonable degree of reliability. Expert testimony in areas that are not sufficiently developed to support an expert opinion can present the kind of danger that section 90.403 was designed to prevent....

...a material fact, is admissible unless otherwise provided by law. See *188 §§ 90.401, .402, Fla. Stat. (2002). Relevant evidence is inadmissible, however, where the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ause his desire to evade prosecution and the successful completion of the planned crime were attenuated in time. Though relevant, the statement by Brooks still may have been inadmissible if its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2002). Brooks argues that this is the case, and exhorts this Court to conduct the section 90.403 balancing test in accordance with the factors articulated in State v....

...he cold-blooded murder committed with such a sinister motive. Thus, any probative value in admitting a life insurance policy that was not linked to Brooks in any way was outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice, requiring its exclusion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...ath at a hearing, deposition, or formal proceeding could be considered for the truth of their contents. Though not identical, section 90.801(2), Florida Statutes (1993), is substantially similar to rule 801(d)(1)(A). [4] Florida's comparable rule is section 90.403, which states that "relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." [5]...

...les would control the admissibility of the credit application. See §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (1999). However, relevancy is not the only test for admissibility. Sexton, 697 So.2d at 837. Despite the fact that all relevant evidence is admissible, section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of relevant evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion *22 of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1999). Although section 90.403 mandates the exclusion of unfairly prejudicial evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect....

...inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact," would appear to allow opinion testimony of the defendant's guilt. However, such testimony is precluded on the authority of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), which excludes relevant evidence on the grounds that its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant....

...See §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2000). Relevant evidence "is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...In every case, the trial court must also balance whether the probative value of the relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

...(Emphasis added.) As will be explained in this opinion, these statements reflect the trial judge's misunderstanding of the procedures involved in a hearing on the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. [2] Professor Ehrhardt also notes that some Florida district courts of appeal had taken the position that section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code superseded the Frye test....

...led to bring this fact to the jury's attention to show bias, motive, or self-interest." Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901, 109 S.Ct. 250, 102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988). However, evidence of bias is subject to a section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), [4] balancing and may be inadmissible if its unfair prejudice to a witness or a party substantially outweighs its probative value....

...Where the State wishes to introduce Williams rule evidence in a criminal action, it must provide the defendant notice, at least ten days prior to trial, of the offenses or acts it intends to offer. § 90.404(2)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (1993). No such notice was given in the instant case. [4] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cu...

...rove a material fact, is admissible unless otherwise provided by law. See §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2005). Relevant evidence is inadmissible, however, where the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...The district court suggests that the similarity of conduct should be less when a defendant seeks to introduce Williams rule evidence because there is a lessened chance of prejudice. Section 90.402, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that all relevant evidence is admissible except as provided by law. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), however, provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible when outweighed by prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or presenting of cumulative evidence....

...The court further concluded that the statement fell within the exception to the hearsay rule for excited utterances, which is contained in section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (2006). [2] The court also acknowledged that the statement was "extremely damaging," but applying the test of admissibility in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2006), concluded that its potential for unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value on the issue of premeditation....

...g the victim, it was relevant in the guilt phase to establish the element of premeditation for first-degree murder. Evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact is admissible except as provided by law. §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2006). Section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of evidence if its probative value is "substantially outweighed" by any *951 of several considerations, including the danger of unfair prejudice. As with evidentiary determinations in general, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard to a trial court's application of the unfair prejudice test of section 90.403....

...4th DCA 1995) ("[A] jury can find a defendant who has killed in the heat of passion guilty of either second degree murder or manslaughter. . . .") (citing Forehand v. State, 126 Fla. 464, 171 So. 241 (1936)). Having concluded that the evidence was relevant, we next review the trial court's determination under section 90.403 that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice....

...Accordingly, the potential for unfair prejudice in Hagin's statement that she wanted her children did not "substantially outweigh" the statement's probative value. We conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion under the rules of evidence, specifically sections 90.403 and 90.803(2), in allowing the State to introduce the statement over defense objection....

...As we said in Baird, the inherently prejudicial effect of admitting into evidence an out-of-court statement relating accusatory information to establish the logical sequence of events outweighs the probative value of such evidence. Such practice must be avoided. Baird, 572 So.2d at 908; see § 90.403, Fla....

...rge that was later dropped), and that Hayes released the victim and allowed her to leave the room. We also find that any marginal relevance the prior attack may have had to the instant case was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...victim. We dealt with a similar issue in Alston v. State, 723 So.2d 148, 156 (Fla.1998), and, as here, found that the admission of a videotape was relevant and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not barring the tape on the basis of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...n be applied to evidence at trial. 90.703 Opinion on ultimate issue. — Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. In addition, section 90.403 provides: 90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion....

...that the opinion evidence can be applied to evidence offered at trial. These provisions embody a liberal policy on the admission of expert evidence, generally rendering such evidence admissible to the extent that it is helpful to the trier of fact. Section 90.403 adds a fourth test barring evidence that, although technically relevant, presents a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value....

...the ordinary understanding of the jury. Johnson v. State, 393 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 1980). This view is consistent with the first requirement of section 90.702, that the opinion evidence be helpful to the trier of fact, as well as the provisions of section 90.403, that the danger of prejudice may outweigh the value of the evidence....

...Holland's opinion was predicated upon and intended to explain the evidence offered at trial of the victim's change in behavior and the victim's claim of trauma at the hands of the appellant. The fourth test for admissibility contained in the provisions of section 90.403 presents a more difficult issue: Is the probative value of Dr....

...e expert testimony first establish that the subject can support an expert opinion with a reasonable degree of reliability. Expert testimony in areas that are not sufficiently developed to support an expert opinion can present the kind of danger that section 90.403 was designed to prevent....

...Based upon all the considerations discussed above, we cannot say that the probative value of the opinion evidence on the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome offered here was so substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice as to bar its admission under section 90.403....

...85, 88 (1935) (petition for 28 At any rate, Florida evidence law governing the relevance of and prejudice created by evidence is essentially the same as the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 887 (Fla.1998) (observing that § 90.403 of Florida's Evidence Code, which governs the admissibility of evidence when it presents the risk of prejudicing a party, "is in essence a restatement of Federal Rule [of Evidence] 403"). re-hearing)....

...ert's testimony. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 702.1 (1992). In the instant case, Malone's testimony about his extensive experience in other investigations was relevant to establish his qualifications as a hair and fiber analyst. Although section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury or needless presentation...

...ind was not a material issue in the prosecution for which the state was entitled to adduce evidence. See State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904, 907 (Fla.1990). In any event, the danger of unfair prejudice far outweighed any probative value of the testimony. § 90.403, Fla....

...g under the influence of a drug such as cocaine. Therefore, it would appear that evidence that McClain had even a trace of cocaine in his blood would have some relevance. However, the question here is whether the evidence was properly excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which states: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...Indeed, the same item of evidence may be admissible in one case and not in another, depending upon the relation of that item to the other evidence. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, § 185 (3d ed. 1984). Professor Ehrhardt explains the application of the statute as follows: Although Section 90.403 is mandatory in its exclusion of this evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by any of the enumerated reasons. The court must weigh the proffered evidence against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion. In excluding certain relevant evidence, Section 90.403 recognizes Florida law. Certainly, most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions....

...In circumstances such as this, we strongly suggest that prosecutors err on the side of caution by omitting these statements and that trial courts consider the danger that the prejudicial effect of such evidence will substantially outweigh any probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...and unverified abuse of children other than the victim a focal point of the trial. We conclude that the prejudicial effect of this evidence, in total, outweighs any relevance the State alleges a particular individual's testimony might have had. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Appellant further asserts that even if the testimony about appellant's statement to Bonilla and the prior crimes and arrest warrants is relevant, this evidence is so inflammatory that its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect in violation of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1260 (Fla.1988). In reviewing testimony about a collateral crime that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...hearing *695 because the trial judge denied funding for the transportation of fifty-two out-of-town witnesses and because the judge allowed only eight witnesses to testify. We find no merit in Robinson's claim under the circumstances presented here. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the ......

...ry, with a transcript provided for their review during the playing of the tapes. Before we begin our analysis of this issue, we review the test to be applied in such cases. Admission of probative but potentially prejudicial evidence is controlled by section 90.403, Florida Statutes. It states in pertinent part: 90.403 Exclusion on the grounds of prejudice or confusion—Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2007). In State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla.1988), we explained the balancing test a trial court must perform under section 90.403 in determining whether relevant evidence is admissible against a defendant at trial....

...The tapes, including the language used as well as the context in which the conversations took place, provided relevant information for the jury to consider when assessing the reliability of his explanations. Professor Ehrhardt explained the application of section 90.403 under these circumstances as follows: Evidence of conduct or speech of the accused which demonstrates a consciousness of guilt is relevant since it supplies the basis for an inference that the accused is guilty of the offense....

...allowing Samantha Williams to testify about an encounter she had with Aguirre in her home prior to the murders because the testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. We disagree. We conclude that the testimony was relevant and did not violate section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...We further find that the testimony's probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See Steverson v. Florida, 695 So.2d 687, 688-89 (Fla.1997) (holding that most evidence admitted will prejudice the party it is offered against, but section 90.403 is "directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions" (quoting Charles W....

...Sunrise Point Condominium, 540 So.2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Appellants argue, however, that even if the evidence was relevant, it should have been excluded because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...hose perceived by, or made known to, him at or before the trial. If the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. In addition, section 90.403 provides: 90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion....

...Thus, it cannot be said that the court erred in designating him an expert in the field of grief and bereavement. Finally, appellants argue that the statements made by the expert witness should be excluded as their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...The trial court sustained the State's objection, finding that the letters would be cumulative of other evidence, but did not prevent Rivers from characterizing portions of the letters from Parker. Parker contends that this ruling was in error. We disagree. *282 Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2003), provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." (Emphasis supplied.) In Mendoza v....

...cutor's expert witness in explaining how the shooting occurred. Appellant contends in this appeal that even if the blood-stained clothing was relevant evidence, its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...The test of admissibility is relevancy, Ruffin v. State, 397 So.2d 277 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 368, 70 L.Ed.2d 194 (1981); Williams, but relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2011). Relevant evidence “is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...cause the threat was not taken seriously, that argument goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Even relevant evidence, though, must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...at 251 (citations omitted). On the other hand, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative *1213 evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...As we said in Baird, the inherently prejudicial effect of admitting into evidence an out-of-court statement relating accusatory information to establish the logical sequence of events outweighs the probative value of such evidence. Such practice must be avoided. Baird, 572 So.2d at 908; see § 90.403, Fla....

...This evidence may yet be inadmissible if it is not legally relevant. See McCormick, supra § 185 at 440-441; 23 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence, supra, at § 124; Cotton v. United States, 361 F.2d 673, 676 (8th Cir.1966); Hoag v. Wright, 34 App.Div. 260, 54 N.Y.S. 658, 662 (1898). Section 90.403 encompasses the test for legal relevance by requiring that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence......

...State, 402 So.2d 365 (Fla. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1035, 102 S.Ct. 1739, 72 L.Ed.2d 153 (1982) (sodium butathol test). [20] Other techniques, however, have been held to have sufficient reliability so as to vest discretion in the trial court to consider Section 90.403's balancing test for legal relevancy....

...e used in a given case. Hence, the probative value of hypnosis rests on both the reliability of the principle and the technique or procedure employed, both of which are inseparably intertwined. The court must first evaluate such evidence pursuant to Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, by weighing its probative value in an effort to decide if its admissibility would be substantially outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misguidance of the jury, or needless presentation of the issues....

...Dependent upon the degree to which the eight foregoing safeguards can be satisfied, the trial judge can weigh the probative value of the testimony to see if it is substantially outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice, or by the fact that it may mislead the jury. § 90.403, Fla....

...Contending that this evidence was similar fact evidence, Butler argues this evidence should have been excluded because it was used only to show Butler's propensity to commit the crime charged or his bad character and because the probative value of this evidence was outweighed by the prejudice. See §§ 90.403-90.404, Fla....

...State, 705 So.2d at 1366 (reversing death sentence on proportionality grounds in case with one aggravating factor and "copious unrebutted mitigation"). Therefore, I would reverse the death sentence and remand for imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment. NOTES [1] Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla.1993). [2] § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...is termed "similar fact" evidence or "dissimilar fact" evidence, its admissibility is determined by its relevancy. The trial court must utilize a balancing test to determine if the probative value of this relevant evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...allow a police officer to testify as an expert as to a relationship between possessing $1,290 in cash and dealing in narcotics. [1] Any probative value the expert *936 testimony might have had was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. § 90.403, Fla....

...burning of her car given its marginal probative value and its tendency to suggest that Wallace burned the vehicle to destroy evidence incriminating Dennis. See Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000) ("We review a trial court's ruling on a section 90.403 objection on an abuse of discretion standard.")....

...Moreover, the jury properly heard substantial evidence of incidents in which Dennis's jealousy manifested itself in his relationship with Lumpkins. In his eighth claim on appeal, Dennis contends that the trial court erred in admitting several autopsy photos of the victims over his section 90.403 objection....

...[3] Although Scales testified that she could not recognize the individual, she was certain that it was not Joseph Stewart. [4] The expert testified that this was not surprising given that the shotgun was submerged in the sewer drain for some time before it was recovered. [5] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in relevant part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2001). "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...firmative defenses as was done and especially so since there was no doubt from the pleadings before the amendment as to whom the driver was. Nothing in the evidence offered before or after the amendment changes now the conclusion that under F.S. [§]90.403 the Court should have excluded the remote condition of alcohol from the case....

...the other driver who causes the initial wreck. I recognize that the driver's intoxication has the potential of distorting these cases because the emotional nature detracts from the proper focus of the case, but a trial judge has the discretion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), to control *443 the evidence and ensure that the driver's intoxication does not misdirect the jury's proper focus....

...to the effect that the "animal in the car was `alcohol,'" caused undue emphasis to be placed on alcohol as a primary cause of the injury.... Nothing in the evidence offered before or after the amendment changes now the conclusion that under F.S. [§]90.403 the Court should have excluded the remote condition of alcohol from the case....

...I would apply Brown, Manasse, and Cloud, which appear to me to compel the *444 conclusion that the district court's decision must be quashed. Moreover, I find that the trial court addressed this issue correctly in ruling on the motion for rehearing. The trial court recognized that it had discretion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), in respect to the evidence presented to the jury....

...th the fault of the driver of the vehicle who allegedly caused the initial crash. Majority op. at 426 (footnote omitted). [21] The state of intoxication of the driver of the car which collided with the car driven by Maria Nash should be handled as a section 90.403 issue, as was done by the trial court in D'Amario....

...Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (2007), defines relevant evidence thusly: "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." And section 90.402 provides that "[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2007). Section 90.403 sets forth the following exclusion: 90.403....

...danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible. *195 § 90.403, Fla....

...d and that the additional evidence would obscure the discovery of the truth."), for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing or confusing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...tances, it was not relevant to any material issue on the facts of this case."), for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing or confusing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ve. Based on this record, the court did not err in this respect, for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing or distracting or confusing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...d be probative of anything." Based on this record, the court did not err in this respect, *196 for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...*197 Based on this record, the court did not err in admitting the evidence of flight, for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing or misleading the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...order to explain certain statements in the tapes, the court did not err in this respect, for the court reasonably may have concluded that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...dmissible if relevant, e.g., to support the State's theory of the motive in the case. Jorgenson v. State, 714 So.2d 423, 427 (Fla.1998). However, "[e]ven after *573 determining the evidence is relevant, a trial court in every case must also consider section 90.403," which prohibits the admission of relevant evidence when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially exceeds the evidence's probative value....

...reasonable doubt, harmless error. C. Admission of Photographic Evidence At trial, appellant objected to the admission of all 97 photographs found in the packet. The court found that all of the pictures were relevant, but reviewed each picture under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), weighing the probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice, and excluded seven of the photographs from jury review....

...zes the objectionable pictures into three groups: photos of Floyd's daughter, photos of Keller's child, and photos of female genitalia. This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard to a trial court's application of the unfair prejudice test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...ear abuse of discretion. The sixteen pictures of the victim were the most prejudicial photos admitted at trial, and appellant has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in determining the admissibility of the other pictures under section 90.403....

...§ 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...r fact' evidence or `dissimilar fact' evidence, its admissibility is determined by its relevancy." Zack, 753 So.2d at 16. Both types of evidence of uncharged crimes or other misconduct are, of course, subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403....

...there was also testimony that Victorino went to the park to confront the individuals who had taken his property. The record also reveals that the probative value of the evidence was not "substantially outweighed" by the "danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403....

...Therefore, in addition to analyzing whether the evidence is relevant, there must also be a careful analysis by the trial court and then this Court as to whether the prejudice from this collateral crime evidence substantially outweighs any probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion." (Citations omitted.) We agree that the foregoing statement is the correct standard to review a ruling on the admissibility of evidence under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...d therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Williams rule, does not give proper consideration to the fact that the admission encompassed many other crimes irrelevant to this case. Thus, it must be analyzed under case law interpreting both sections 90.403 and 90.404, Florida Statutes (2001). The majority chooses not to analyze the remark under section 90.404, see majority op. at 13-15, and also fails to perform a section 90.403 balancing test, which would lead to a conclusion that this statement had negligible probative value that was far outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...By comparison, in Griffin, but for the testimony as to the theft of the keys, the jury would naturally have asked how (and whether) the defendant actually stole the car. WHETHER PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE The assessment of the statement's probative value is only the first step in determining admissibility. Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), evidence is inadmissible if its probative value "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Collateral crime evidence is presumptively prejudicial....

...Huggins also contests the admission of his nine prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes, arguing that the State, rather than defense counsel, elicited the hearsay statement attributed to Huggins and that evidence of Huggins' nine felony convictions should have been excluded under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...Thus, pursuant to section 90.806, as properly construed in Llanos, Werley , and Kelly, Huggins opened the door to his own impeachment. Regarding Huggins' argument that evidence of his nine prior felony convictions should have been excluded under the balancing test of section 90.403, this Court must determine if the trial court abused its discretion. See Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000). Section 90.403 provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." The gene...

...Here, however, the prior-record impeachment on a collateral matter took the jury far from the question of the defendant's guilt of the charged murder. Even when the impeachment does not go to a collateral matter, the impeachment evidence may be excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2004), which provides *775 that evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...er than through contradictory evidence or inconsistent statements by the witness on a specific matter. Cf. Riechmann v. State, 581 So.2d 133, 140 (Fla.1991) (observing that "the nature and remoteness of prior convictions" may justify exclusion under section 90.403)....

...The State did not attempt to introduce the prior record under section 90.404, Florida Statutes (2004), which governs the admission of evidence of other crimes, demonstrating its irrelevance for any purpose but impeachment. Accordingly, the prior record should have been excluded under section 90.403. Even assuming that the testimony concerning Huggins' reason for shaving his pubic region opened the door for impeachment and that the prior record was not inadmissible under section 90.403, I nonetheless question whether the admission of Huggins' prior record is authorized by section 90.806....

...(emphasis added). The trial court in this case accepted appellant's stipulation that he was a sexual offender without disclosing to the jury any further details about the nature of his offense, thereby applying the evidentiary balancing test required by section 90.403, Florida Statutes ("Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.")....

...State, 408 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1982) should be overruled in favor of the evidentiary analysis in Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997). The Court answered affirmatively and decided the case on evidentiary grounds, addressing the balancing of section 90.403....

...There is no contention by appellant that the jury instructions as given do not properly state the legal elements of section 943.0435(9). Although the trial court should accept the defendant's stipulation of status to avoid undue prejudice pursuant to section 90.403, the trial court is not precluded from giving a jury instruction that properly sets forth the elements of the crime....

...On at least one occasion a court has admitted evidence depicting an accident 27 At any rate, Florida evidence law governing the relevance of and prejudice created by evidence is essentially the same as the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 887 (Fla. 1998) (observing that § 90.403 of Florida’s Evidence Code, which governs the admissibility of evidence when it presents the risk of prejudicing a party, “is in essence a restatement of Federal Rule [of Evidence] 403"). 76 sc...

...ot be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994). However, relevancy is not the only test for admissibility. Even after determining that evidence is relevant, a trial court in every case must also consider section 90.403. Section 90.403 states in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Section 90.403 does not bar the introduction of all evidence that is prejudicial or damaging to the party against whom it is being offered; indeed, as a practical matter, almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1988). In reviewing testimony about a collateral bad act that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...The admission of this testimony thus did not violate the rule set forth in Williams. Appellant further asserts that even if the testimony about the prior crime was relevant, it was so inflammatory that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect in violation of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...d the graphic nature of the prior crime. He claims that O'Brien's testimony was especially prejudicial because it erroneously led the jury to believe that he used a baseball bat to beat the four-year-old victim. The trial judge overruled appellant's section 90.403 objections to this testimony....

...We conclude that the trial judge acted within his discretion in overruling the objections. Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1988). In reviewing testimony about a collateral crime that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...Further, he argues that even if relevant, the documents served only to confuse and mislead the jury because they implied that he took advantage of his wife and father. [13] We agree with the trial judge that the documents were relevant to the issue of identity. Moreover, we agree that their introduction did not violate section 90.403....

...on of another crime and thus necessarily is prejudicial to the defendant. Bryan, 533 So.2d at 747; Williams, 110 So.2d at 660. However, evidence of other crimes that is relevant and therefore not barred by section 90.404(2)(a), may be excluded under section 90.403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice....

...nstructions were given. Thus, because the challenged testimony is relevant to a material fact in issue and its probative value clearly outweighs the potential for undue prejudice, there is no bar to its admission under either section 90.404(2)(a) or section 90.403....

...90.401 in proving impairment of one's normal faculties in the prosecution of a DUI offense; and (2) if answered in the affirmative, then does the likelihood of any unfair prejudice require their exclusion in those prosecutions under F.S. 90.402 and 90.403? [1] We exercise our discretionary jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4)(A) because of the disparate approaches and conclusions of the county court judges concerning the admissibility of field sobriety test evidence in DUI prosecutions within this district....

...VE VALUE OF THE TESTIMONY ON FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE DANGER OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE, CONFUSION OF ISSUES, OR MISLEADING THE JURY SO AS TO REQUIRE EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY IN DUI PROSECUTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 90.402 AND 90.403, FLORIDA STATUTES? We answer these questions by distinguishing between: (1) psychomotor field sobriety tests, in which the defendants are requested to perform certain tasks; and (2) the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, which is scientific evidence of a physiological phenomenon associated with intoxication....

...If the evidence is logically probative, it is relevant and admissible unless there is a reason for not allowing the jury to consider it." Id. at 704 (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 401.1 at 95-96 (1994) (footnote omitted)); see § 901.401, Fla.Stat. As stated in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995): "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidenc...

...e. We disagree that a per se rule of inadmissibility should be adopted which would require exclusion of this evidence in all cases. As long as the testimony by the officers is restricted to lay observations, we agree with the state that, pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), the probative value of the psychomotor testing is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...gard to the individual facts of any particular case. Certainly in an individual case, depending on the totality of the facts and the nature of the testimony, a trial court might very well be within its discretion to exclude such evidence pursuant to section 90.403....

...Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1997), defines relevant *33 evidence as "evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." All relevant evidence is admissible unless the party seeking to exclude the evidence can show its exclusion is required on grounds of prejudice or confusion. § 90.403, Fla....

...The scientific portion of the Drug Evaluation is unreliable. It is in reality scientific evidence which does not satisfy the Frye [26] test; but even if Frye is inapplicable, the evidence should be excluded because it will mislead the jury and because its unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Trial counsel then made a motion for a mistrial. The trial court denied both of the motions. Owen's specific argument is that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that the admission of the statement was unfairly prejudicial in violation of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2001). Section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of relevant evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2001). Although section 90.403 mandates the exclusion of unfairly prejudicial evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect....

...atement. Thus, although the proffered question may have been relevant, any probative value of the question and answer was clearly outweighed by the danger of misleading or confusing the jury by only hinting at and not establishing the inconsistency. § 90.403, Fla....

...—although he already had been tried and convicted for that offense—and the unfairly prejudicial effect of this evidence on the jury far outweighed any relevancy or probative value it may have had in proving Steverson's guilt for the Lucas killing. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), states in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. In State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla.1988), we explained the balancing test a trial court must perform under section 90.403 in determining whether relevant evidence also is admissible against a defendant at trial....

...Indeed, the same item of evidence may be admissible in one case and not in another, depending upon the relation of that item to the other evidence. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, § 185 (3d ed. 1984). Professor Ehrhardt explains the application of the statute as follows: Although Section 90.403 is mandatory in its exclusion of this evidence, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by any of the enumerated reasons. The court must weigh the proffered evidence against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion. In excluding certain relevant evidence, Section 90.403 recognizes Florida law. Certainly, most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it is directed at evidence which inflames the *689 jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions....

...ow he was killed, and the medical examiner's photograph of the body. Even if the state had been able to show some relevance, this evidence should have been excluded because the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value. § 90.403, Fla....

...Clearly, the charged and collateral offenses committed by Rawls share the unique combination of characteristics required to meet the strict standards of the Williams rule. Further, the probative value of the similar fact evidence outweighed its potential for undue prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...ories or techniques than does Frye. Their admissibility is not dependent solely upon proof that they have not generally been accepted by the relevant field — although lack of general acceptance, when balanced against all counterweights, pursuant to section 90.403, is clearly a component to be considered in determining whether the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by countervailing factors. If the challenged evidence, such as that in the present case, is logically relevant, and if balancing does not reveal it to be substantially outweighed by the factors *556 enumerated in section 90.403, the trial judge should tip his hand in favor of admissibility....

...NTIFIC EVIDENCE, SURVIVED THE ADOPTION OF THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE? AND IF IT HAS NOT, DOES IT NEVERTHELESS REMAIN A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN BALANCING THE PROBATIVE WORTH OF THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE AGAINST COUNTERVAILING FACTORS, AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 90.403, FLORIDA STATUTES? 470 So.2d at 787-88....

...n be applied to evidence at trial. 90.703 Opinion on ultimate issue. — Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. In addition, section 90.403 provides: 90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion....

...that the opinion evidence can be applied to evidence offered at trial. These provisions embody a liberal policy on the admission of expert evidence, generally rendering such evidence admissible to the extent that it is helpful to the trier of fact. Section 90.403 adds a fourth test barring evidence that, although technically relevant, presents a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value....

...the ordinary understanding of the jury. Johnson v. State, 393 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 1980). This view is consistent with the first requirement of section 90.702, that the opinion evidence be helpful to the trier of fact, as well as the provisions of section 90.403, that the danger of prejudice may outweigh the value of the evidence....

...The State, however, took the position that the testimony was inadmissible as evidence of a victim's prior sexual activity under section 794.022(2), Florida Statutes (1987), Florida's Rape Shield Statute, [2] or *924 alternatively that, even if the statute did not apply, the testimony was inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), [3] because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice to the victim....

...nds to establish a pattern of conduct or behavior on the part of the victim which is so similar to the conduct or behavior in the case that it is relevant to the issue of consent. Neither of the above exceptions were asserted in the trial court. [3] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), provides in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...90.401, Fla. Stat. (2003). Relevant evidence, however, "is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...as limiting the admissibility of collateral crimes evidence to a fifteen minute time interval. We, however, never intended to set an arbitrary time limit. We, therefore, clarify our holding in D.M. as limiting the admissibility of relevant evidence pursuant to section 90.402, based upon a section 90.403 analysis, which requires that the probative value of such evidence not be outweighed by its prejudicial effect....

...ny was harmless under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). I understand that the evidence was objected to below on the grounds of failure to meet the Frye test. Upon proper objection, the evidence in question would also be excludable under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion), for the reasons stated by Judge Wolf....

...I agree with Judge Ervin, for the reasons stated in his opinion, that appellant's alternative objection based on the Frye test was likewise well taken. I likewise agree with Judge Wolf's opinion that testimony of this nature is in all events inadmissible under sections 90.401, 90.403 and 90.404 of the Florida Evidence Code for the reasons he discusses, although it should be noted that this specific ground apparently was not presented to the trial court....

...[38] This type of evidence must be excluded for several reasons: (1) It unfairly misdirects the focus of the criminal proceeding and is not relevant to the issues to be decided, section 90.401, Fla. Stat. (1989); (2) the probative value of this evidence is far outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the evidence, section 90.403, F.S....

...Petrich, 101 Wash.2d 566, 683 P.2d 173, 180 (1984); State v. Claflin, [38 Wash. App. 847,] 690 P.2d 1186, 1190 (Wash. App. 1984); State v. Maule, 35 Wash. App. 287, 667 P.2d 96, 99 (1983). Haakanson v. State, 760 P.2d 1030, 1036 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). Since section 90.403, Florida Statutes, is similar to Alaska's provision related to prejudicial evidence, the analysis would be equally valid in Florida....

...Evidence relating to characteristics of other people who generally commit a type of crime indirectly brings the accused's character into issue and has even less probative value than direct evidence of defendant's character. Thus, the evidence in question was inadmissible pursuant to section 90.403(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...We do not believe, however, that our position sacrifices any principles of justice since we are convinced that the commission of a petit theft is, per se, a crime involving "dishonesty" and, therefore, bears directly on the witness' capacity to testify truthfully at trial. Also, section 90.403 of the evidence code enables the trial court to exclude evidence of prior convictions, even though relevant, if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...his kind of evidence, it should be received with caution." Grant v. State, 171 So.2d 361, 363 (Fla. 1965) (quoting People v. Dabb, 32 Cal.2d 491, 197 P.2d 1, 5 (1948)), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1014, 86 S.Ct. 1933, 16 L.Ed.2d 1035 (1966). Furthermore, Section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code states that: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

...support the "heightened premeditation" prong of CCP in this case. [16] Nor can it be said that Melissa Perry's testimony regarding Perry's statement was the type that would have inflamed jurors or improperly appealed to its emotions in violation of Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997).

...Finally, the probative value of the replica outweighed any prejudicial effect because the replica was used to explain the manner in which the components could have been combined to build a weapon and the manner in which the weapon was consistent with the victim's head injury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Smith now contends that the ruling of the trial court constituted an abuse of discretion because, had the sister and mother been cross-examined with regard to the alleged sexual conduct between Smith and his sister, the unfair prejudice of this testimony would have substantially outweighed its probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...sed because it was irrelevant to the instant proceeding. For the first time on appeal, Smith now contends that while this evidence may be relevant, the relevance is far outweighed by its prejudicial value and therefore should be excluded pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...ves rise to a violation of a defendant's confrontation rights, or the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value." Id. at 1205. We agree with Duncan that the prejudicial effect of this gruesome photograph clearly outweighed its probative value. Section 90.403, Fla....

...minimum probative value necessary to establish relevancy, with or without the aid of an expert *658 witness to interpret the effect of narcotic addiction on the particular witness. However, introduction of such evidence is subject to exclusion under Section 90.403 whenever unfair prejudice or misleading of the jury is likely to result....

...the particular witness's ability to perceive, record, recollect, narrate, and understand the obligation to testify truthfully will be an important factor in assessing the probative value of such evidence in light of the trial concerns recognized in Section 90.403....

...rge that was later dropped), and that Hayes released the victim and allowed her to leave the room. We also find that any marginal relevance the prior attack may have had to the instant case was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...at 1014. After the adoption of the Florida Evidence Code, of which section 90.702 is part, disagreement arose among the district courts of appeal as to whether (i) the relevancy test under section 90.702 combined with the so-called balancing test of section 90.403 or (ii) the Frye test was to be applied to determine the admissibility of novel scientific evidence....

...They are equally irrelevant." Id. at 733. We emphasize once again why the type of testimony allowed in this case is impermissible and highly prejudicial. Even if such testimony were marginally relevant, it would be substantially outweighed by the "danger of unfair prejudice." See § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...le hearsay is that the "highly impeachable statement . . . was presented for the jury's consumption without affording . . . an opportunity to cross-examine"). Second, testimony that serves as a conduit for inadmissible evidence is inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), because its probative value is "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues [or] misleading the jury." See Schwarz, 695 So.2d at 455 (holding that the expert should not have been allowed to testify that he consulted with other experts in his field because "[a]ny probative value would be `substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury . . .' § 90.403, Fla....

...al expert's opinion as to what the standard of care is includes training, experience, reading text and treatises, and talking with other physicians who provide similar care and treatment. The majority appears to fall back upon an argument based upon section 90.403, Florida Statutes, in stating "this type of testimony is inadmissible because any probative value is outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and of misleading the jury that the expert's testimony has the approval of other experts in the field." Majority op....

...A trial court applies the following test in making a determination on the admission of such evidence: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

...Peterson asserts that the trial court should have excluded the portions pertaining to the phrase that Peterson “stacked ‘em double” because it had so little relevance to Andrews’ murder and was extremely prejudicial by implying that Peterson had committed a previous murder. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2009). He further contends that evidence regarding other uncharged crimes is admissible only if it fits under the provisions of section 90.404(2), Fla. Stat. (2009), contending that this does not apply here. Specifically, section 90.403 provides, “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Conflict with Fouts v. State, 374 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Art. V § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. [2] The certified copy was similar to the form set out in rule 3.986 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. [3] §§ 90.402 and 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1979). Although not in effect at the time of Parker's trial, § 90.403 codified the then pre-existing case law governing the admissibility of evidence.

...t proof of its reliability. II. RELIABILITY An expert witness is normally permitted to testify relative to generally accepted scientific theory in the witness's area of expertise. The witness's testimony is subject to the balancing test set forth in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), which focuses on "legal" reliability and applies to all evidence. When a court is faced with expert testimony based on a new or untried scientific theory, however, the balancing test in section 90.403 is inapposite because the court may be unable to gauge accurately the danger of misleading or confusing the jury due to the unproven nature of the testimony....

...t it in the form of an opinion; however, the opinion is admissible only if it can be applied to evidence at trial. § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2000). All evidence, including expert testimony, is subject to the requirements of sections 90.401, 90.402, and 90.403, which address relevancy and reliability....

...All relevant evidence is admissible, unless specifically excluded: 90.402 Admissibility of relevant evidence.-All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law. § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2000). Relevant evidence is excluded inter alia if it is unreliable under the balancing test in section 90.403: 90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.—Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, *843 misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2000). In applying this balancing test, the court bars from the jury's purview evidence that is unduly prejudicial, misleading, or confusing—i.e., evidence that is "legally" unreliable. A trial court's ruling on a section 90.403 issue will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion....

...st" aggravator; (7) HAC aggravator; (8) excluding certain evidence of family background; and (9) denial of a penalty phase special verdict form. [6] See, e.g., Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000) ("We review a trial court's ruling on a section 90.403 objection on an abuse of discretion standard.")....

...Neither is this character evidence, which is offered to show that appellant acted in conformity with past character, as proscribed in section 90.404, Florida Statutes (1981). We must therefore weigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant against the admitted relevance of the evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

...102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959). According to section 90.401, Florida *589 Statutes (1985), relevant evidence is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact. Section 90.402 states all relevant evidence is admissible except as provided by law. Section 90.403 states that relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...That she had undergone an earlier, identical arrest without experiencing significant emotional trauma was logically relevant to disprove her present damage claim. As noted in Brown, supra, logically relevant evidence "may yet be inadmissible if it is not legally relevant." Id. at 88. "Section 90.403 encompasses the test for legal relevance by requiring that `[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence......

...However, even if a proper predicate has been laid or the opposing party cannot prove the untrustworthiness of the evidence, the records must still withstand the test of relevancy. Accordingly, a trial judge may exclude the records if they are unfairly prejudicial or confusing. § 90.403, Fla....

...State, 859 So.2d 465, 477 (Fla.2003) (citing Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000)). Below, we discuss the trial court's admission of each of these items into evidence and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Photographs, like all other evidence, are subject to the section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989), balancing test. Pursuant to section 90.403, "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...only if it can be applied to evidence at trial. 90.703 Opinion on ultimate issue. — Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), operates as a limitation and provides in pertinent part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading...

...Traveling companion Harris testified that Jones, Griffin, and Goins told her that the trio had escaped from prison and that they were not going to go back. Thus, at the time Garrett testified, the jury had been exposed to Jones's prison escape. [9] On direct appeal, objections under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard....

...State, 681 So.2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996). In Williamson, we said: Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal trial prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. In reviewing testimony about a collateral crime that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...We agree with the trial judge's ruling that Garrett's testimony had relevance to show the escapees' states of mind at the time of the criminal episode involving the shooting in Tallahassee. We further agree with the trial judge in his overruling the section 90.403 objection in the context of the evidence already admitted in the trial....

...Moreover, the trial judge did not allow the details of the escape to become a focus of the trial. Thus, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying this objection. Accordingly, we determine that Jones has failed to demonstrate prejudice. Even if we were to accept that the trial judge's section 90.403 ruling was erroneous and appellate counsel's performance was deficient for failing to raise this point, the other evidence in the record, including Harris's eyewitness testimony, would have made such error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt....

...beyond the understanding of the average layman.... In Kruse v. State, 483 So.2d 1383, 1384-85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), the court held expert testimony on posttraumatic stress syndrome admissible in a child sexual assault case when proven relevant under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and more probative than prejudicial....

...to introduce the expert opinion. Specifically, (1) the opinion evidence must be helpful to the trier of fact; (2) the witness must be qualified as an expert; (3) the opinion evidence must be applied to evidence offered at trial; and (4) pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the evidence, although technically relevant, must not present a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value....

...Our review of the record has revealed no abuse of the trial court's discretion in these preliminary findings. Furthermore, our review of the computer animation videotape in the context of this record convinces us that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in its balancing analysis pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995)(substantively identical to 1991 version). See Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1991)(trial court has broad discretion in determining whether evidence *810 should be admitted when there is a section 90.403 objection)....

...discretion. See Blanco v. State, 452 So.2d 520, 523 (Fla.1984). Evidence is admissible if it tends "to prove or disprove a material fact" at issue, § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (1999), unless its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ver objection, that Hubbard opened the door on cross-examination to such a line of questioning. Id. The investigator testified accordingly on redirect examination. The First District concluded that the investigator's testimony was inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), "because the danger of prejudice outweighed any probative value that could have been attributed to the fact of prior license suspensions." Id....

...we approve its disposition of the prior bad acts evidence issue. [30] The fact that Hubbard had his driving privileges suspended in the past clearly was of slight probative value, which was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...even though it points to the commission of another crime." [2] Examples of relevant but inadmissible evidence are: Privileged relationships, § 90.502-506, Fla. Stat.; hearsay, § 90.801, Fla. Stat.; where probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, § 90.403, Fla....

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Id. § 90.403. However, once the trial court determines that

...han any other. The court ruled that the hair had no probative value of Sawyer's presence in Janet's apartment at the time of the murder, or that even if it was probative, its probative value is far outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1985), relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by, among other things, the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury....

...“A trial court’s ruling on the admission of photographic evidence will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Davis v. State, 859 So.2d 465, 477 (Fla.2003) (quoting Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000)). Photographs are subject to the section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008), balancing test. Pursuant to section 90.403, “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...Accepting this argument, the trial court entered an order prohibiting the introduction of the medical testimony of Sanchez on the basis that "[t]he medical evidence from Nurse Practitioner Sanchez will not be admitted at trial because, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 90.403, the probative value of her medical testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." The elimination of her medical testimony, as the trial court has done, eliminates her as a witness....

..."However, almost all evidence to be introduced by the state in a criminal prosecution will be prejudicial to a defendant. Only where the unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence should it be excluded." Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1260 (Fla.1988) (citation omitted); § 90.403, Fla....

...outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."). The burden is on the party attempting to exclude the evidence to make that showing. The unfair prejudice that section 90.403 attempts to eliminate relates to evidence that "`inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions.'" State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla.1988) (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 403.1 at 100-03 (2d ed.1984)); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 310 (Fla. 1997); State v. Tagner, 673 So.2d 57, 60 *160 (Fla. 4th DCA) ("Section 90.403 ......

...In accordance with the general rule that "[a]dmission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion," [1] a trial court's ruling that determines whether evidence should be eliminated under section 90.403 is generally reviewed, like the admissibility of most other types of evidence, pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard....

...se, testified as to her physical findings of trauma to one child and no findings of trauma to the other two children), approved, 687 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1996). We thus conclude that the trial court erred in finding this evidence unduly prejudicial under section 90.403....

...Johnston, 743 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (issuing writ of certiorari quashing a trial court's order prohibiting the state from introducing victim impact evidence in the penalty phase *162 of a murder trial based on the trial court's finding that, pursuant to section 90.403, the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the evidence); State v. Andres, 552 So.2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a pretrial motion to exclude a tape recording of an undercover drug deal pursuant to section 90.403 because, "[a]lthough the statements were detrimental to the defendant's case, they did not prejudice him unfairly.")....

...2d DCA 1989), the state sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order excluding evidence that included the deposition testimony of a state's witness taken to perpetuate that testimony. The trial court held that the testimony was inadmissible under section 90.403 because it was cumulative. Citing to Pettis, the district court quashed the trial court's order and held: Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987) provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by ......

...trict court granted a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court's order of exclusion. Implicit in the decisions in Wells and Nemeth is the admonition that exclusion of relevant testimony of a witness *163 must be done with extreme caution. Because section 90.403 is a restatement of Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence, [3] the decisions of the federal courts applying the federal rule are considered instructive by, and persuasive on, the Florida courts....

...Although the exact reason given by the trial judge for excluding the evidence might not pass muster, valid reasons for excluding the evidence do exist. I would apply the "tipsy coachman" rule, therefore, and conclude that the trial judge was correct, albeit for the wrong reason. Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla.2002). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, gives the trial judge broad discretion to exclude otherwise admissible evidence if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the "danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2002); State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla.1988) (trial court has "large measure of discretion" under 90.403); Pierce v. State, 718 So.2d 806 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (trial court has broad discretion under 90.403)....

...consistent with sexual abuse." Although innocuous enough to the trained ears of lawyers and judges, the trial judge could conclude, within the bounds of his discretion, that a jury might be misled by this opinion. Even if not properly excluded under section 90.403, the trial judge could have properly excluded it under section 90.702, Florida Statutes, by making the determination that it will not assist the trier of fact....

...[5] Having conceded that the trial court's decision to exclude Sanchez's testimony might be erroneous, the dissent argues for application of the tipsy coachman rule, suggesting that the evidence might be excluded under section 90.702 and other provisions of section 90.403, Florida Evidence Code. The only basis for excluding Sanchez's testimony presented by Gerry and considered by the trial court was unfair prejudice under section 90.403....

...Like the court in Robertson, which held that the tipsy coachman rule did not apply because the trial court failed to make the required determinations for admitting Williams rule evidence, the trial court in the instant case never engaged in the weighing process under section 90.403 to determine whether the evidence should be excluded under the alternative grounds advanced by the dissent....

...Generally speaking, however, evidence of the specific nature of the conviction would not establish bias, and allowing inquiry as to the specific nature of the charge would circumvent the prohibitions of section 90.610. Further, evidence of bias is subject to the balancing test mandated by section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), which requires a court to hold otherwise admissible evidence inadmissible if its unfair prejudice to a party substantially outweighs its probative value....

...[2] We make no judgment as to whether the evidence actually tends to prove or disprove Coler's state of mind. Further, we do not comment on whether the introduction of such testimony should be excluded as a result of weighing its probative value against any unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...[2] Although this testimony was objected to at trial on several grounds, the only argument that the City makes in its brief is that Springstun's testimony as to what Kordzikowski said should not have been admitted, as its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ing her. He also claimed that he never walked to work because Shawn Romedy, his supervisor at Grimes Contracting, always drove him to work. 10 Prior to trial, Jackson filed a motion to exclude the entire two-hour videotaped interrogation pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), arguing that the probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because the videotaped interrogation allowed the State to elicit sympathy for the victim and inform the jury that the police adamantly believed Jackson was guilty....

...laim on appeal. Jackson argues that the trial court erred by finding the videotaped statements, made after waiving his Miranda rights, admissible because their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...CONCLUSION Accordingly, under the facts and circumstances present in this case and for the reasons expressed above, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the videotaped interrogation at trial because the probative value was substantially .outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...g otherwise inadmissible evidence and by placing an aura of scientific truth upon a document which is legally unreliable. Thus, the opinion should have been excluded because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. § 90.403, Fla....

...At oral argument, counsel for Banks conceded that some of the other statements would be admissible as verbal acts. Indeed, much of the conversation between Goodman and the undercover officer would appear to be admissible to explain Banks' conduct in driving the car to the eventual scene of the illegal transaction. [4] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in pertinent part that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless...

...ow he was killed, and the medical examiner's photograph of the body. Even if the state had been able to show some relevance, this evidence should have been excluded because the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value. § 90.403, Fla....

...State, 695 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). To allow an expert to do so would cause any probative value of the testimony to be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury." Id. at 455 (quoting § 90.403, Fla....

...testimony was irrelevant, and it was error to allow it to be impeached, see Section 90.608(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and 2) even if it was relevant, the probative value of the impeaching testimony was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, see Section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...The general rule is that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2007). “Relevant evidence is [defined as] evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2007). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), establishes a limitation on the introduction of relevant evidence: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues...

...The evidence must be clearly relevant to establish a material fact in issue such as identity, motive, opportunity, plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident. Id. However, even when relevant, such evidence nevertheless may be inadmissible *1218 under section 90.403 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." It is the obligation of the court to weigh the probative...

...would be admissible against Turtle in this case, we conclude on the record before us that the extent of the evidence and arguments concerning Turtle's offenses against C.M.F. was the result of the state's presentation and not attributable to trial tactics and efforts of the defense, was unduly prejudicial under section 90.403, and deprived Turtle of a fair trial, so that its admission amounted to an abuse of discretion by the trial court....

...t in issue, the proposed testimony similarly must be excluded. Once, however, the proposed evidence meets section 90.702's two requisites for admissibility, the trial judge's discretion thereafter to exclude is sharply curtailed by the provisions of section 90.403....

...Although evidence of the syndrome in the case on review may be considered relevant, because it satisfied section 90.702's *785 dual requisites for admissibility, such relevance, as McCormick notes, "does not ensure [its] admissibility." Id. at 544. One then turns next to Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, to decide, in the words of McCormick, "whether its value is worth what it costs." Id. Unlike the Dyas approach, one then balances the worth of the challenged profile evidence against all other pertinent factors, including the question of its reliability. Section 90.403 provides: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence......

...falls under an exception to the rule against character evidence. Admissibility then should turn on the extent to which the expert testimony would assist the jury viewed in the light of the usual counterweights. [Balancing under Federal Rule 403, or Section 90.403, Florida Statutes.] The qualifications of the expert, the reliability and validity of using the profile, and the need for the evidence thus affect the admissibility and of course the weight of the profile evidence....

...The discretion conferred upon the trial judge by the Evidence Code to exclude evidence is, as stated, not unlimited. He may only exercise his discretion to exclude if the probative value of relevant evidence "is substantially outweighed" by the factors listed in section 90.403 (e.s.)....

...ion on the basis of the particular facts before him. But, once he finds that the proponent of the evidence has satisfied the above two requisites for admissibility, he possesses no discretion to exclude without first complying with the provisions of section 90.403....

...In the present case, the most that can be said against the admissibility of evidence regarding the battered woman syndrome is that its value is debatable. A conflict or a debate among experts as to the validity of a particular methodology does not, under section 90.403, call for the exercise of a trial court's discretion to exclude: The phrasing of Rule 403 makes it clear that the discretion to exclude does not arise when the balance between the probative worth and the countervailing factors is debat...

...ories or techniques than does Frye. Their admissibility is not dependent solely upon proof that they have not generally been accepted by the relevant field — although lack of general acceptance, when balanced against all counterweights, pursuant to section 90.403, is clearly a component to be considered in determining whether the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by countervailing factors. If the challenged evidence, such as that in the present case, is logically relevant, and if balancing does not reveal it to be substantially outweighed by the factors enumerated in section 90.403, the trial judge should tip his hand in favor of admissibility....

...NTIFIC EVIDENCE, SURVIVED THE ADOPTION OF THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE? AND IF IT HAS NOT, DOES IT NEVERTHELESS REMAIN A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN BALANCING THE PROBATIVE WORTH OF THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE AGAINST COUNTERVAILING FACTORS, AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 90.403, FLORIDA STATUTES? NOTES [1] The following exchange took place: Q....

...Consequently, evidence as to the defendant's drug-based relationship with the victims' daughter was relevant and inextricably intertwined with the crimes charged. We also disagree with McGirth's contention that the evidence concerning his drug-based relationship with Sheila should have been excluded under section 90.403 because the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect....

...dicial, this Court will not overturn its decision absent an abuse of discretion." Murray v. State, 3 So.3d 1108, 1124 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 396, 175 L.Ed.2d 273 (2009). Relevant evidence is subjected to a balancing test under section 90.403, and "[o]nly when the unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence should it be excluded." Wright v....

...Kingston, 240 F.3d 590, 591-92 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Stamper, 766 F.Supp. 1396, 1398 (W.D.N.C.1991). “Evidence alleging that the accuser made false prior accusations may be excluded if the evidence has minimal probative value.” Tail, 459 F.3d at 860 . According to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), “[relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative...

...ng that this testimony will be adverse and claim surprise in order to impeach such witness. This is particularly true when the procedure is nothing more than a device to get into evidence before the jury that which would otherwise be inadmissible. F.S. 90.403 Even if Spardello's testimony was admissible as impeachment of the deposition testimony of Fred Sell and Michael Light, such testimony (as all evidence) was also subject to the provisions of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994). "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...Moreover, it would appear that the giving of this instruction was helpful, rather than harmful, to the defense. Defendant argues alternatively that the evidence regarding consumption of alcohol and prescribed medicine should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible, inter alia, "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury...." At trial th...

...subject of the investigation; and whether the detective knew anything about the brother. The State's objections were properly sustained. Under the circumstances, these questions were irrelevant and potentially seriously misleading for the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...arsay statements would be admitted into evidence (the statement to child's mother and the statement to the Rape Treatment Center physician), to allow the lead detective to repeat the child's out-of-court statement would be needlessly cumulative. See § 90.403, Fla....

State, 533 So.2d 270, 273-75 (Fla.1988) (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1985)). Here, Swafford’s statement

...Moreover, the potential confusion and unfair prejudice far outweighed any probative value, even if we assume this evidence had any relevance at all. Thus, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the introduction of this evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

....e., fear of violent reprisal, since reference to the collateral crime would not be admissible under Section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1979) and the probative value of mentioning the rape would be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...However, when settlement evidence goes to a witness's "motivation[ ], interest, and position" the probative value of such proof of bias outweighs the danger of prejudice. See Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 408.1, Fla. Stat. (2003 ed.) (citing Dosdourian, 624 So.2d at 241; § 90.403, Fla....

...compromised the jury's ability to judge the credibility of Herring. A reasonable judge could decide that the "probative value" of the evidence of A-1's prior status as a defendant was not "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403, Fla....

...See Bankers Trust Co. v. Basciano, 960 So.2d 773, 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ("If the evidence is offered for another purpose, the evidence is not barred by section 90.408 and will be admissible if it is relevant to prove a material fact or issue, subject to section 90.403."); Wolowitz v....

...A. Sims first argues that the court erred in admitting testimony that officers were looking for Vaughn’s truck and that it had been under surveillance. According to Sims, the court should have excluded the evidence under section 90.403, which precludes evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” We review this issue only for an abuse of discretion, Hudson v....

...Appellant was entitled to have the jury hear such evidence to consider the nature of the relationship between appellant and the state's witnesses. That this testimony showing bias included allegations of Melvin's homosexuality does not disqualify it from admission under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Thus, the complained-of choking evidence is clearly relevant as proof of identity and not solely as prohibited proof of bad character or propensity to commit a crime. Moreover, as the trial judge correctly found, the probative value of this evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...See §§ 90.401, 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2009). Relevant evidence is inadmissible, however, where the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

...The letter was directed to internal affairs and alleged criminal activity on the part of the officer investigating the case against appellant. While we recognize that the trial court has broad discretion in areas concerning the admissibility of evidence, Welty v. State, 402 So.2d 1159 (Fla.1981), we also note that under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, even relevant evidence may be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...0.401, Fla. Stat. (1993). However, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...g it within the purview of section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1987), [2] nor was the statutorily required ten-day notice given by the State. Finally, Maharaj claims that this evidence's prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, contrary to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...Bowen's knowledge of Hank Carr's character and past, and her intent to aid him in avoiding arrest or prosecution. See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). Nevertheless, on remand the trial court may consider anew whether this evidence is unduly prejudicial. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ure. [2] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the pre-accident, postmanufacture design change, nor in instructing the jury upon same. While there may be circumstances which require the application of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991), [3] the record in this case does not so require....

...[2] Appellant agreed to stipulate that the "alternative design to the 327, which is on the table, which is the only one that will be demonstrated, was feasible both financially and under engineering principles at the time that its predecessor, the 727, was manufactured... ." [3] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991), provides: 90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion....

...ctions to enter judgments for the defendants. NOTES [1] We agree that this was error. We find that this evidence was vague and indefinite. Whatever relevance it may have had was greatly outweighed by its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...."); art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. ("No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law...."). [3] With respect to federal precedent, it should be noted that section 90.403(6) is based on Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)....

...We recognize that this information is also available from other sources, namely the testimony of Wolowitz and Dessberg. Thus, whether the trial court should exclude the "contract confirmation" as "needless presentation of cumulative evidence" under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), is a question that can only be answered based on the proceedings at trial....

...Play the rest of the tape. It is our judgment that allowing the jury to hear the nature and intensity of Bonsall's interrogation denied Pausch a fair trial. The introduction of Bonsall's statements was prejudicial, confusing, and misleading. *1219 § 90.403, Fla....

...Furthermore, a police officer testified at trial that because of caliber differences, the bullets seized from the defendant's car could not have been fired in the gun that was fired at the victim. Defendant further argues that even if the gun was relevant, its prejudicial impact outweighed any probative value under § 90.403, Fla....

...The trial court concluded that in enacting section 90.404(2)(b), the legislature was attempting to overrule or modify the supreme court's rulings in Saffor v. State, 660 So.2d 668 (Fla.1995), and Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122 (Fla.1987). It also concluded that the legislature intended section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2001), to affect the admissibility of evidence under section 90.404(2)(b), so that a trial court must evaluate Williams rule evidence to determine whether its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect....

...on while assisting the court in its effort to reach a correct decision. Ultimately, the trial court decided that section 90.404(2)(b) applied in this case and that the statute was constitutional. The trial court determined, however, that pursuant to section 90.403 it would be overly prejudicial to admit all of Mr....

...setting. Under the bill, any evidence of prior or subsequent acts of child molestation would be admissible regardless of how similar or dissimilar the other acts are compared to the charged crime. However, the evidence would still be subject to the s. 90.403, F.S., scrutiny of weighing its probative value against its prejudicial effect....

...LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Mound, 149 F.3d 799 (8th Cir.1998); United States v. Enjady, 134 F.3d 1427 (10th Cir.1998). Moreover, the new statute does not simply open the courthouse to all propensity evidence. As demonstrated in this case, section 90.403 still requires the trial court judge to act as a gatekeeper, weighing the probative value and the prejudicial effect of the proffered testimony....

...was not introduced for the purpose of establishing identity. Identity has always been the most troublesome issue confronted by the Williams rule. See generally Rawls, 649 So.2d at 1353; Morman, 811 So.2d at 718 (Altenbernd, J., concurring). Whether section 90.403 is sufficient to monitor Williams rule evidence in cases involving identity, or whether due process requires a special rule of "striking similarity" and shared unique characteristics in cases of disputed identity remains an open question in our minds....

...[5] We address this matter because the constitutionality of the statute might be an issue we could avoid if the evidence would have been admissible under the earlier line of cases. [6] To assure that the probative value of the evidence always outweighs its prejudicial effect, it may be that a proper legal analysis under section 90.403 should simply incorporate a "striking similarity" test within that rule when addressing an issue of identity....

...Such actions, made when she was fully sober, did not infer that Macias was drunk on the night she was arrested. We do not say that under all circumstances a judge must accede to the prosecutor's request that a DUI defendant perform roadside sobriety tests in court. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Evidence reflecting *218 his criminal past could have been prejudicial to Brownlee, but would have brought no probative support to Whitfield's theory of innocence. Even relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...State, 856 So.2d 969, 980 (Fla.2003) (holding that admission of audiotape recording of 911 call was proper). A tape recording of the words uttered by a declarant can undoubtedly be powerful evidence. But that—without more—is hardly a reason to exclude the tape recording. Absent a showing pursuant to section 90.403 that the "probative value" of such evidence "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice," the rules of evidence do not permit the exclusion of such evidence....

...f's deputies. Upon retrial, if the State again seeks admission of these tape-recorded interviews into evidence, we suggest that the trial court consider whether some statements by Smith or the interrogating officers or both should be redacted. See §§ 90.403, 90.801-.802; Martinez v....

...A witness may not provide his or her opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a criminally accused. Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla.2000) (explaining that although section 90.703 permits opinion testimony on an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact, opinion of the defendant's guilt is precluded under section 90.403)....

...n following routine surgery. South Miami Hospital's objection to the survey on relevancy grounds was sustained. From its comments in the record, the court was of the opinion that the survey was immaterial and unfairly prejudicial: I have a 403 [sec. 90.403] problem with this, Mr....

...Indeed, the jury would not have reached the proximate cause question if it had determined that there was no duty or no breach of a duty. We hold that where all the elements of a single cause of action depend for proof on the same improperly excluded evidence the two-issue rule is inapplicable. VI. UNFAIR PREJUDICE Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), does not preclude the admission of all prejudicial evidence, only that evidence which is unfairly prejudicial....

...the soccer complex. Concerning the issues raised on appeal, we conclude that, although the trial court erred in its conclusion that the State's attempt to revoke Willie Junior's plea agreement was irrelevant, the evidence was properly excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), because the limited probative value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...1st DCA 2003) (quoting Nardone v. State, 798 So.2d 870, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). Under the rules of evidence, Appellant could attack Junior's credibility by "showing that a witness is biased." § 90.608(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). The relevancy standards of section 90.401 and section 90.403 limit the scope of evidence available to show Junior's bias. Section 90.401 defines relevant evidence as that evidence "tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Under section 90.403, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." In this case, the trial court's rulings were based upon findings that the excluded evidence was either irrelev...

...."); Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343, 359 (Fla.2001)("[T]he trial court's ruling on an evidentiary matter will be affirmed even if the trial court ruled for the wrong reasons, as long as the evidence or an alternative theory supports the ruling."). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002), provides: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible. "Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant." Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996). In reviewing whether evidence is inadmissible under section 90.403, "a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice....

...Only when the unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence should it be excluded." Id. As Professor Ehrhardt explains: Most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial or damaging to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it applies to evidence which is directed to an improper purpose, such as evidence that inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions or that an accused committed the charged crime because of evidence of the bad or evil character of the accused....

...Certainly, as the trial court stated when ruling on the inadmissibility of the notice of revocation, if the notice to revoke were admitted into evidence, the trial court's order denying the motion would be allowed into evidence as well. *594 This court has recognized that the balancing test for excluding evidence under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, requires that a court carefully evaluate the probative value of the evidence to the party favoring admission, and compare this to the unfair prejudice to the party opposing admission....

...The trial court allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine Marchina on this statement and force his admission that the previous "trouble" included a prior arrest on unrelated charges involving "little girls." On appeal, this court agreed with the Marchina defendant that this evidence should be excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...e the State's case with unreliable evidence. Because the prejudice to the State that would be created by the admission of the notice to revoke substantially outweighs the very limited probative value of this evidence, the notice was excludable under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...additional details of the same charges. The probative value of the indictment, with regard to Junior's credibility, is far too attenuated to support a conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the instrument. Moreover, under section 90.403, the trial court may, and did, properly guard against undue prejudice, in particular, any suggestion that the prosecution did something wrong or unfair by amending the charges....

...s beyond a reasonable doubt. KAHN, C.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part. I respectfully disagree with the majority's finding that the State's attempted revocation of Junior's plea agreement and Elliot's acquittal were properly excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...e with his testimony in appellant's case). The extremely fact-specific nature of this case is demonstrated most graphically by the majority per curiam opinion and by Judge Thomas' special concurring opinion. The majority applies the familiar rule of section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and simply reaches a different result than the one I believe is correct....

...Jackson, 451 So.2d at 461; Pieczynski v. State, 516 So.2d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Cole v. State, 356 So.2d 1307, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Any probative value was far outweighed by the obvious danger of unfair prejudice. See Francis v. State, 512 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); § 90.403, Fla....

...The issue under discussion is governed by the pertinent provisions in the Florida Evidence Code. Section 90.401 states, "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Section 90.402 states, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law." Section 90.403 states, "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." The sponsor *162 note to this section explains that "nothing that fails to meet the tests of §§ 90.401 and 90.403 may be admitted." Accordingly, section 90.404(2)(a) recognizes the interplay of section 90.401 and 90.403 by specifying that "similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue." Since similar fact evidence of other crimes is inherently prejudicial to a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, such evidence is admissible under section 90.404(2)(a) only to prove a material fact in issue, that is, a material fact that is genuinely in dispute. In view of the obvious conflicting nature of the interplay between sections 90.403 and 90.404(2)(a), there appears to be some inconsistency in the reported decisions involving the admission of similar fact evidence of other crimes in cases of sexual battery against children....

...If there is no bona fide dispute over a material fact that the similar fact evidence is offered to prove, then the probative value of such evidence necessarily has significantly less importance than its prejudicial effect, and the evidence should be excluded under section 90.403....

...ined from the particular facts and circumstances involved in each case, i.e., has the defendant put such fact in issue. This construction and application of section 90.404(2)(a) brings it into complete harmony with the purpose of sections 90.401 and 90.403....

...2d DCA 1988). The state simply has not satisfactorily explained how and why the evidence of the Georgia episode tends to prove a material fact in issue with respect to the charged offense. The admission of the evidence of the Georgia offense violated sections 90.403 and 90.404(2)(a)....

...inadmissible events. Furthermore, even relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

...judicing the jury against the appellant so that any probative value the testimony may have had was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial, as well as cumulative, nature. The trial court's error in admitting Ms. Peeno's testimony in violation of section 90.403 was compounded when the trial *282 court permitted the state's expert child psychologist to render his opinion that, based upon Ms....

...ad anything to do with it. Keller denied any connection. Keller objected to Fox's testimony and sought to exclude it. He now argues that because the testimony of Peggy Fox was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial it should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987): Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...Fox's testimony was irrelevant to proving the charges of sexual battery and false imprisonment which were at issue in this trial. Moreover, the highly prejudicial aspect of this testimony is self evident. Clearly, Fox's testimony should have been excluded pursuant to section 90.403....

...clear abuse of discretion." Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1991) (quoting Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So.2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) and agreeing that this is the correct standard to review a ruling on the admissibility of evidence under section 90.403, Florida Statutes)....

...4th DCA 1969). Although relevant evidence is generally admissible, it may be excluded by the rules of evidence. Moreover, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." § 90.403, Fla....

...3d DCA 2000) (requiring new trial where evidence of bar patron's bad acts improperly admitted). The trial court also based its order granting a new trial on its finding that the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed any relevance of Findeisen's testimony. See § 90.403, Fla....

...dice exceeds its probative value. This argument was raised for the first time by UPS after the verdict and represented a substantial change in position. Moreover, in granting the new trial on the basis that the evidence was improperly admitted under section 90.403, the trial judge articulated the wrong test....

...State, 681 So.2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996) ("Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant."). As Professor Ehrhardt made clear: "Most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial or damaging to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it applies to evidence which is directed to an improper purpose, such as evidence that inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions or that an accused committed the charged crime because of evidence of the bad or evil character of the accused....

...l follow a limiting instruction by the court. The burden is on the objecting party to demonstrate that the probative value is `substantively outweighed' by one of the countervailing factors."). [9] This seems just another example of improperly using § 90.403 to make the admission of relevant evidence under § 90.402 function as discretionary, contrary to § 90.403's very limited purpose. The modifiers in § 90.403 ( unfair and substantially ) disclose a definite aim to have it apply only in highly specific circumstances. The fact that prejudice must be unfair undoubtedly means something more than that it may sway jurors as to the merits of the claim to which it is relevant. As Professor Ehrhardt pointed out above, § 90.403 is directed to "evidence that inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions." Neither is true in this case.

...ving a curative instruction when a witness referred to the defendant's "previous dealings" with guns and ownership of guns. "Relevant evidence is inadmissable if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice... ." § 90.403, Fla....

...Should either the police officer's or Mr. Joyner's statement qualify as nonhearsay at trial on remand, the court must still balance the probative value of the statements against the prejudicial effect before admitting either as relevant evidence. See § 90.403.

...evidence of Botte's drug consumption as it relates to his physical state on that day. Such evidence, to be admissible, should be demonstrated to relate to the relevant issues and not be used solely to create prejudice in the minds of the jurors. See § 90.403, Fla....

...To have stepped into the quicksand of the other homicide case would have sunk this trial into litigation over the myriad details of a completely unrelated homicide. Even relevant evidence is inadmissible if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of ... confusion of issues [or] misleading the jury...." § 90.403, Fla....

...and `therefore are usually irreplaceable as substantive evidence.'"), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 923, 109 S.Ct. 3253, 106 L.Ed.2d 599 (1989). [6] See § 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. (1989); C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.4, at 485 (power to exclude under § 90.403); 4 J....

...State, 717 So.2d 462 (Fla.1998). Evidence of “other bad acts,” which are collateral to the crime charged and not considered Williams rule evidence, is admissible if relevant and not more prejudicial than probative. Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 16 (Fla.2000) (citing § 90.403, Fla....

...Burton should not have been permitted to do so. There is too much of a possibility of an inference being drawn that these experts agreed with Dr. Burton. Any probative value would be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury..." § 90.403, Fla....

...en different offenses. In other words, appellant argues, any slight probative value in proving the nature and number of the several offenses charged against appellant was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of this information upon the jury, citing Section 90.403, Florida Evidence Code, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...ot material and probative. It should also exclude relevant evidence if its probative *270 value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...In the case now before us the similarity between the collateral act of molestation perpetrated by Mr. Triplett with respect to another young woman and the charged molestation was a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing of the evidence required by section 90.403....

...Stassinopoulos' claim for future lost wages in the maritime industry. The trial court found, however, the prejudice of such evidence to be substantially outweighed by its probative value. We cannot find this ruling to be an abuse of discretion. See § 90.403, Fla....

...State, 513 So.2d 122, 124 (Fla.1987). Even if a trial court finds that the collateral crime evidence is admissible *100 under section 90.404(2), the court must also take a second step and weigh the danger of unfair prejudice against the probative value of the evidence. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2008); McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248, 1256 (Fla.2006). If the danger of unfair prejudice "substantially outweighs" the probative value, the trial court must exclude the evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403. The similarity of the collateral act of molestation and charged offense is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403....

...Branch had been charged with fraudulent notary violations involving absentee voting materials collected by Appellant and Ms. Branch in the 1996 campaign, the witness answered: "I don't know the exact charges, but she were [sic]." Defense counsel objected pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and argued that the charging of Ms....

...to rhizomes. Here again, because the testimony introduced by the non-party growers involved a different use of Benlate and a different harm, we hold that the evidence introduced by the prior claims was not relevant to the present action. Pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2001), relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...Kim testified that he had not heard of Ethel Sanchez and had not reviewed Dr. Gerardo Martinez' reports. However, Dr. Kim's trial testimony included work by the plaintiffs' disclosed virus experts, Sanchez and Dr. Martinez, whom Du Pont deposed but the plaintiffs did not call. Citing section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), Florida's Supreme Court held that "[t]he trial court must utilize a balancing test to determine if the probative value of this relevant evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect." White, 817 So.2d at 806....

...it is appropriately presented with the issue. We caution the court, however, that "[s]uch evidence, to be admissible, should be demonstrated to relate to the relevant issues and not be used solely to create prejudice in the minds of the jurors. See § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...3d DCA 2000) (holding that evidence regarding bad acts was not relevant or essential to prove a material fact and served only to demonstrate bad character and propensity). Clearly, the probative value of this evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...§ 90.612; Hernandez, supra . But such judicial discretion is constrained by a defendant's right to confront adverse witnesses. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Jones v. State, 385 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). While § 90.403, Florida Statutes, provides that relevant evidence may be inadmissible when it creates a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or results in a needless presentation of cumulative evidence, the statute exp...

...Under the Florida Evidence Code, evidence is relevant and therefore admissible if it tends to prove or disprove a material fact, sections 90.401-.402, Florida Statutes (1987), provided the probative value of that evidence outweighs the potential prejudice or confusion it may cause. § 90.403, Fla....

...Florida courts have frequently criticized the use of testimony from police officers regarding their experience with other criminals as substantive proof of a particular defendant's guilt or innocence." 4. The problem is not only one of excluding evidence under Fla. Stat. § 90.403 but is also more fundamentally one of providing the defendant a fair trial under the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions....

...the defendant probably committed the similar act with which he is charged. This well known phenomenon of jury inclination to believe the defendant did the act charged is the basis for many evidentiary rules of exclusion. The first is exemplified by section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which renders inadmissible even legally relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...s otherwise provided. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. To this rule there is a rather broad vague exception to the effect that even relevant evidence must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...makes him willing or inclined to commit a certain type of sexual *814 wrongful act. This is the very type of evidence that is intended to be excluded by the basic rule excluding relevant but unfairly prejudicial evidence as that rule is codified in section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...If the objective is to convict the accused, that view of Heuring is the better view; but if the objective is to offset human nature in order to achieve a fairer trial as to the charge being tried, which was the object of the rule excluding this type of evidence, then section 90.403, Florida Statutes, should be applied....

...rejudice. Under the Evidence Code, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

..."Most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial or damaging to the party against whom it is offered." Charles W. Ehrhardt, supra, at 183. The question under the statute is not prejudice but instead, unfair prejudice: whether the "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403, Fla....

...�without demonstrating that the same weapon was used in both crimes. In the present case, by contrast, the ballistics evidence is that the identical weapon was used in all three of the armed robberies. The trial court also ruled that exclusion under section 90.403 was appropriate because the collateral crimes evidence was "not the sole means available to the State to prove identity." In conducting an analysis under section 90.403, the trial court "must weigh the logical strength of the proffered evidence to prove a material fact or issue against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion." Charles W....

...liability for the claim or its value." § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (1999). If the evidence is offered for another purpose, the evidence is not barred by section 90.408 and will be admissible if it is relevant to prove a material fact or issue, subject to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1999)....

...Relevant evidence is any evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact. § 90.401. However, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403. Thus, section 90.403 mandates a weighing process....

...Denmark's remote juvenile conduct had little, if any, probative value. See Donahue v. Albertson's Inc., 472 So.2d 482, 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (noting evidence can be remote in time or remote in sense of being too attenuated); Carrillo v. State, 727 So.2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding under section 90.403 that threats and disruptive behavior occurring over an hour after aggravated assault was too far removed in time and had little probative value as to intent or state of mind at time of offense)....

...Our record does not disclose that the trial court assessed the undue prejudice that the evidence might work upon Mr. Denmark. The facts underlying Mr. Denmark's January 2001 arrest were not subject to much dispute. His sanity at the time of the offenses was the key issue. For purposes of the probative value prong of section 90.403, the trial court acknowledged that Mr....

...s. The prosecutor repeatedly referred to Mr. Denmark's juvenile offenses, without linking Mr. Denmark's January 2001 mental condition to the events that plagued him as a juvenile. The prosecutor established no probative value for the evidence. Under section 90.403, the trial court should have weighed the absence of probative value against the undue prejudice to Mr. Denmark. See McClain, 525 So.2d at 422 (holding section 90.403 compels trial court to weigh danger of unfair prejudice against probative value of evidence); Steverson, 695 So.2d at 689 (explaining proper application of section 90.403 balancing test; even where some relevance shown, court must weigh and exclude evidence when danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value)....

...rs that overreached, presented irrelevant and immaterial facts, misled jury, and discredited insanity defense); Maldonado v. Allstate Ins. Co., 789 So.2d 464, 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding evidence of illegal alien status improperly admitted under section 90.403 where unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading of jury thoroughly outweighed probative value); Dean v. State, 690 So.2d 720, 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding under section 90.403 general drug dealer criminal behavior patterns unduly prejudicial with only purpose to place misleading inferences before jury). Conclusion We apply a harmless error test to the improper admission of evidence under section 90.403....

...But his testimony for that reason alone should not, in my judgment, have been the cause for its exclusion. Moreover, in determining whether the evidence was admissible, the trial court should have considered the counterbalancing factors outlined in Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). Although a trial court enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude relevant evidence pursuant to section 90.403, Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), such discretion is not unlimited. As section 90.403 expressly provides, the discretion to exclude relevant evidence may be exercised only if the evidence's "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." (Emphasis added.) In commenting upon Federal Rule of Evidence 403, after which section 90.403 is patterned, Wright and Graham point out that "the discretion under Rule 403 is far from a license for free-wheeling exclusion; it carefully delineates a balancing test that must be applied before the evidence can be excluded." 22 C.A. Wright & K.W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5166, at 74 (1978). The balancing process required by section 90.403 was analyzed in the following terms by a wellknown commentator: In weighing the probative value against the unfair prejudice, it is proper for the court to consider the need for the evidence; the tendency of the evidence to suggest an...

...Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 403.1, at 103 (2d ed. 1984). In my judgment appellant's need for the opinion evidence outweighed any adverse consideration. At the very minimum it clearly was not substantially outweighed by any of the countervailing factors listed in section 90.403....

...The comments made by the deputies did not prove or disprove any material fact and the trial court should have excluded them because of their lack of relevancy and the substantial danger of unfair prejudice to appellant. See Pulliam v. State, 446 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); § 90.403, Fla....

...Appellant complains that the court unfairly restricted his cross-examination of Martelo merely to avoid prejudice to co-defendant Jorquera. On the contrary, the trial court never needed to reach the issue of prejudice to Jorquera because it determined from the outset that the evidence was irrelevant. Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the court is required to conduct a balancing test to determine if relevant evidence is inadmissible because outweighed by prejudice....

...For this exception to the hearsay rule, the court's decision might be subject to review under a mixed standard of de novo and abuse of discretion. [4] Another example of limited and specific discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence is found in section 90.403, which provides: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." At least initially, the trial judge has discretion here....

...ch evidence should benefit a criminal defendant no more than it should benefit the state." 567 So.2d at 894. Later the court said: "Section 90.402, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that all relevant evidence is admissible except as provided by law. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), however, provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible when outweighed by prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or presenting of cumulative evidence....

...umulative evidence regarding appellant's statement, with the resulting prejudice that the minds of the jurors were indelibly etched with the details contained in the statement. Although no case law directly in point is cited, appellant contends that Section 90.403, Florida Evidence Code, prohibits the "needless presentation of cumulative evidence." We agree with appellant's argument that the triple presentation of his statement was overly repetitious. We note, however, that Section 90.403 provides, in part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. As this court noted in Smith v. State, 404 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the approach expressed in Section 90.403 is in agreement with the Federal Rules of Evidence and federal case law....

...First, allowing the presentation of otherwise inadmissible evidence merely because an expert relied on it in forming an opinion undermines the rules of evidence that would have precluded its admission.... Second, testimony that serves as a conduit for inadmissible evidence is inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), because its probative value is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues [or] misleading the jury.” Id....

...Evidence must be relevant in order to be admissible. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2001). Relevant evidence is defined as evidence "tending to prove or disprove a material fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2001). While all admissible evidence must be relevant, not all relevant evidence is admissible; section 90.403 mandates that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403, Fla....

...4th DCA 2000); see also Dean v. State, 690 So.2d 720, 723-24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Shelton v. State, 654 So.2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Any marginal relevance in this type of testimony was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403....

...t how the crime occurred from the tape recording. Id. at 258-59. The basis of the holding was that the probative value of the detective’s words was “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” or “misleading the jury” under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...the defendant’s responses to the detective’s detailed and speculative narrative — silence and “Uh huh” — as admissions of guilt. Not everything a detective says to a defendant during a recorded interrogation is unfairly prejudicial under 90.403....

...rbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. "[Hjearsay evidence is inadmissible” under section 90.802, Florida Statutes (2008), so its admission is not a discretionary ruling of a trial judge. On the other hand, whether evidence is admissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008), is a discretionary ruling of a trial court....

...is present and best able to compare the two”); Citrus County v. McQuillin, 840 So.2d 343, 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (recognizing abuse of discretion standard of review for rulings on the admissibility of evidence). . A trial judge’s application of section 90.403 to eliminate unfairly prejudicial statements is not a precise tool for addressing the problem of unfair prejudice. Given the wide discretion afforded to trial courts’ section 90.403 rulings, that section hardly eradicates prejudice with laser like precision....

...3d DCA 2001) (holding that prior battery was admissible to prove defendant's intent to injure). Additionally, we find that the probative value of this relevant evidence substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice especially since it did not become a feature of the trial, § 90.403, Fla....

...It contains portions of the investigation performed by the police immediately after the events. This description is based on the police investigation, which obviously has not been subjected to the scrutiny of a trial or the rigors of cross-examination. [2] The relationship between and among sections 90.403, .404, and .405, Florida Statutes (2003), is worthy of consideration....

...r is resolved under section 90.405. Typically, Williams rule evidence is admitted as "specific instance" evidence under section 90.405(2). The case law usually assumes that the trial court will conduct a "probative versus prejudicial" analysis under section 90.403 in connection with a decision under the Williams rule analysis. See Insko v. State, 884 So.2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); McLean v. State, 854 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). At least in this case, the trial court has not yet ruled on the exclusion of any specific item of evidence under section 90.403....

...ibing how the injury occurred, the amended death certificate stated: "Inappropriate restraining techniques." FINR argued in its motion in limine—as it does on appeal—that the opinion evidence concerning the manner of death fell within the scope of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2003), which provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury." FINR cites Spradley v....

...uasive argument regarding the medical examiner's opinion on the manner of death. The existence of some potential for misinterpretation of a particular word is not sufficient to require that a jury be precluded from seeing or hearing that word. Under section 90.403, the potential for misinterpretation must create a "danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury" that "substantially outweigh[s]" the "probative value" of the evidence which has the potential for misinterpretation. "In applying the balancing test [under section 90.403], the trial court necessarily exercises its discretion." State v....

...—which provides that opinion testimony regarding "an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact" is not objectionable—"would appear to allow opinion testimony of the defendant's guilt[,] . . . such testimony is precluded on the authority of section 90.403" because "its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant." Id....

...Given the jury instruction and the medical examiner's testimony concerning the meaning of homicide, any potential for unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury was negligible. In such circumstances, the trial court clearly did not abuse the discretion it exercised under section 90.403 in allowing the use of the term homicide....

...Chemical test results are not required at trial and, when alcohol is the intoxicant, such test results merely give rise to a presumption of impairment. Impairment is ultimately a question of fact for the jury, whether or not there are chemical test results in evidence, and regardless of what those test results show. [8] Section 90.403, Fla....

...ion 943.13(7). Evidence of the commission of criminal offenses by a litigant or a witness has long been recognized to be highly prejudicial and thus inadmissible "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Section 90.403, Fla....

...of how his fingerprints came to be in the murder victim's car). V. For the reasons stated, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and quash the order now before us. *969 Petition granted. [3] NOTES [1] The Morton decision adds the caveat that section 90.403 analysis is available in an appropriate case....

...("In addressing these issues, trial judges must have broad discretion in determining whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion." 689 So.2d at 264). No such issue has been raised here, and we express no view, one way or the other, on whether section 90.403 has any application to the proposed testimony in this case....

...intent, and motive. Section 90.404(2)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. However, such evidence is inadmissible to prove bad character or the propensity of the accused to commit the crime, and as with all evidence, Williams rule evidence is inadmissible under section 90.403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice....

...is clearly relevant nevertheless inadmissible because it is simply "unnecessary" in establishing the offense? The answer, we consider, is found in Parker, wherein the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the test of "legal relevancy", [3] set out in Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, is to be applied: [P]roof of conviction is relevant evidence and is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...s "substantially outweighed" by the danger of unfair prejudice or the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. In reaching this determination, we must bear in mind that although the inadmissibility of evidence which fails to satisfy the test of section 90.403 is stated in mandatory terms, a large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by any of the enumerated reasons....

...[2] Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959). [3] See Brown v. State, 426 So.2d 76, 88-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), wherein we discussed the distinctions between "logical" relevancy, set out in Section 90.401, Florida Statutes, and "legal" relevancy, set out in section 90.403.

...ny with respect to prejudice on the record before overruling the objections. The basis for Appellant's argument is the trial court's failure to demonstrate on the record that it, before ruling on the objection, applied the balancing test required by section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...1992) and find nothing in that opinion inconsistent with our conclusion. In this case, counsel never indicated to the court, in the course of making the objection at trial, that counsel was objecting on each and every ground precluding the admission of relevant evidence under section 90.403, nor did counsel otherwise alert the court that it should indicate for the record that it had applied a balancing test in reaching its ruling on the objection....

...t objection at trial. Additionally, even were the issue preserved, we note that the record is silent as to what factors were considered by the court in overruling the objection. Nothing in Pardo requires the court to sua sponte resolve all potential 90.403 issues once it has been determined, under section 90.803(23)(a), that *781 the hearsay rule does not preclude consideration of the statements....

...To the contrary, the court in Pardo quoted approvingly from the language in the district court's opinion in that case that once it is determined that testimony is allowed under 90.803(23)(a), the statements remain subject, like any other evidence, to analysis under section 90.403. "Thus, the defendant can move for exclusion of the evidence under section 90.403... ." Id. at 667. Nothing in Pardo authorizes or approves counsel's achieving this end simply by stating, "objection, cumulative" or words to that effect. Further, there is no requirement under section 90.403 that the court must make findings on the record or otherwise, to cause the record to reflect the specific reasoning applied by the court in overruling an objection that evidence is cumulative....

...the defendant had actually used the aluminum strip). Even relevant evidence is inadmissible where, as occurred here, "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury." § 90.403, Fla....

...d his claim based on Ring was procedurally barred and without merit. A. Admission of Recording of 911 Call Victorino asserts that his trial counsel should have objected to the 911 call recording that was played during the guilt phase on the basis of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2006), which provided that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentati...

...the jury was brief and Carroll did not implicate Victorino when speaking to 911. Thus, Victorino has not demonstrated that the potential for unfair prejudice from the recording substantially outweighed its probative value. Because an objection under section 90.403 would not have been sustained, Dowdy’s decision not to object to the recording was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct....

...nded Initial Rule 3.851(e)(1) Motion for Postconviction Relief at 54, State v. Victorino, No. 2004-1387-CFAWS (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir. filed Aug. 3, 2011). Victorino contends that upon timely defense objection, the exhibits would have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2006), because they created a risk of unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed their probative value....

...he manner of death, the location of the wounds, or to demonstrate the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) factor.” McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613, 637 (Fla. 2010). This Court also has upheld the admission of gruesome crime scene photographs under section 90.403 where the photographs were used by a witness — other than a medical examiner — to describe the crime scene....

...d by one of the codefendants that was armed with a knife. Given that the photographs in exhibit 10 were probative of the critical, disputed issue of which codefen-dant killed which victim, Victorino did not show that an objection to exhibit 10 under section 90.403 would have been sustained. Similarly, Victorino did not demonstrate that an objection under section 90.403 would have been sustained regarding exhibit 19, which consists of four photographs of victim Nathan....

...This blood trail tended to prove that Vega was attacked in the bedroom but then fought with his assailant(s) before collapsing in the living room. Because the exhibit helped Colton explain the *500 crime scene and the likely chain of events that occurred in the home, an objection under section 90.403 would not have been sustained....

...cation as “W,” which consisted of three photographs depicting a dachshund lying on the floor in the corner of bedroom three and which Colton described as showing the dog’s “crushed or smushed” snout. Any objection to State exhibit 21 under section 90.403 would have been overruled....

...corroborated by Andres' actions and his recorded statements. That evidence more than adequately satisfied the State's burden. See Herrera v. State, 532 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We disagree with the trial court's alternative ruling in reliance on section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), that the probative value of the statements was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...We affirm Wilchcombe's conviction, but remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court exercises broad discretion in the admission of evidence, and in determining whether its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...A trial court has broad discretion concerning the admissibility of evidence and its rulings will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1995). Evidence that is confusing to the jury can be excluded pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...Your verdict[s] must be based on the evidence that has been received and the law on which I have instructed you." Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 7.1. The rules of evidence also provide that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." § 90.403, Fla....

...Allstate certainly provided no evidence that Mr. Maldonado was an itinerant bicyclist yearning to return to his Mexican homeland. After reviewing the record, we conclude the evidence that Mr. Maldonado was an illegal alien was improperly admitted under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...His illegal alien status was employed by Allstate to prejudice the jury against him. Consequently, any limited probative value Mr. Maldonado's illegal alien status may have had was thoroughly outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading of the jury. § 90.403; see also State v....

...character of the witness.... Since the probative value of the testimony of a witness who is called only to impeach is low, and the danger is significant that the jury will be prejudiced by the evidence used to attack credibility, the application of § 90.403 will frequently exclude attacks on the credibility of a witness who is called as a device to place the impeaching evidence before the jury....

...As to those matters, there must be an applicable hearsay exception. Stoll, 762 So.2d at 876; § 90.805 (2009); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Ehrhardt's Florida Evidence § 204.2, at 85 & n. 5 (2009). Under the Evidence Code, a request for judicial notice is also subject to analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...hods is admissible if it shows the bias of a witness.") (footnote omitted). The trial court does, of course, have the discretion to limit cross-examination where "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." § 90.403, Fla....

...ion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence" and where the evidence is submitted to show a defendant's propensity toward commission of the offense or to show a defendant's bad character, with nothing more. See § 90.403, Fla....

...First, the court required that the evidence of the collateral crime be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Second, the court required that the trial court balance the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...Coller also confirmed that Appellant wore the distinctive hat on the night of the crime. We conclude that this evidence amply satisfied the clear and convincing proof threshold. Likewise, we disagree with Appellant's contention that the trial court should have excluded the evidence pursuant to section 90.403....

...That victim, Chambers, testified that, on two occasions while McLean was an overnight guest at Chambers' home, McLean battered him by attempting to penetrate, or actually penetrating, Chambers' anus with McLean's penis. At the time of these assaults, Chambers was twelve years old. Under a section 90.403 analysis, we think the case at bar presents a more compelling case for admission of the collateral evidence than in McLean....

...Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company will wish to discuss settlement with me and I await hearing from you. Although the admissible sentences contained a settlement demand for 3.5 million dollars, the remainder of the letter was highly inflammatory and prejudicial and thus barred by section 90.403, Florida Statutes, because the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effects....

...being generally inadmissible in that type of case. Thus, it appears that the court accepted the practical application of the rule without expressly addressing its applicability to a strict liability action. Another factor influencing our decision is Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which comes into play in the question of the admissibility of subsequent changes: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...ence. See State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1972); Breeding's Dania Drug Co. v. Runyon, 147 Fla. 123, 2 So.2d 376 (Fla. 1941). However, relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is out-weighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Neither party challenges that finding. Once it was established that the statements were relevant to the incident, however, the trial court should have weighed the probative value of the statements against the potential for unfair prejudice. "Under section 90.403, relevant evidence may be foreclosed where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury...." State v....

..."`Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; however it is only unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matters.'" State v. Blackwell, 787 So.2d 963, 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (quoting State v. Andres, 552 So.2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)). "`Section 90.403 ......

...on does not refer to something that would inflame the jury or appeal improperly to the jurors' emotions. The fact that Mr. Gad argued with his wife and ordered her to leave does not rise to the level of prejudicial evidence that would be excluded by section 90.403. See Steverson, 695 So.2d at 688-89 ("Certainly, most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar [such] evidence ...." (internal quotations omitted))....

...Gad can only be prejudiced by these statements if they are actually found to be relevant to the events at issue. Such prejudice, however, is the type that is inherently associated with relevant probative evidence. As such, the evidence is not precluded by section 90.403. Absent a basis for a proper finding of unfair prejudice, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence. See Aylesworth, 666 So.2d at 182 ("A trial court's action taken *771 under [section 90.403] will not ......

...al's routine practice were relevant to patient's allegation of negligence in the hospital's application and maintenance of a traction device). On remand, the trial court should allow General Order 02 into evidence unless otherwise inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...ld that it was “marginally relevant” because it “would tend to render the proposition that the codefendants went to his house to get a firearm more probable.” Id. However, the Second District then conducted the important balancing test under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and determined that “any probative value of the firearm ... was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Id. 2 Utilizing *1237 the weighing test set forth in section 90.403 and the criteria set forth in Steverson v....

...was presumptively harmful). In addition, even assuming evidence that Agatheas possessed a different gun five years after the crime was relevant to a material fact in issue, the Fourth District failed to perform the critical balancing analysis under section 90.403. Evidence is inadmissible “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...State, 991 So.2d 803, 815 (Fla.2008) (declining to decide issue that the district court did not address and that was outside the scope of the conflict). However, this issue may be relevant to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which we do not reach. . Section 90.403 provides in relevant part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the *1237 danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” ....

...Thus, for example, if the autopsy revealed that the deceased suffered from syphilis or AIDS, and such findings were irrelevant to the trial of the case, those results would clearly be excludable. Second, autopsy findings like all other evidence, even if relevant, are subject to the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...t 151. However, Professor Ehrhardt did admit that the issue of quantum of proof "may be one of form rather than substance," for the reason that "similar fact evidence which is suspect in establishing defendant's involvement should be excluded [under section 90.403] since the undue prejudice would substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence."

...affects the admissibility of evidence under section 90.608. We find that the trial court failed to apply the proper standard in summarily precluding evidence that may demonstrate bias against the City. On retrial, the trial court should, pursuant to section 90.403, determine whether the probative value of any prior arrests of Pineiro's witnesses by the Orlando Police Department is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...s employees in their capacities as drivers. Ordinarily, racial slurs and ethnic epithets are so prejudicial as to render them inadmissible, unless the probative value outweighs any prejudice that may result from having the jury hear them. Fla. Stat. § 90.403 (2000); see State v....

...stify concerning it in its case in chief. Thus, notwithstanding its irrelevancy, whatever probative value the testimony may have had was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and the misleading of the jury. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...he respondent at the time of her arrest; the sole ground urged for such suppression was that "[t]he probative value of these statements is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice," thereby making such statements inadmissible under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993). (R.13). The sole point on appeal raised by the respondent before the circuit court was "[w]hether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in failing to prohibit the introduction of an `audio tape' pursuant to Section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code." (R.4)....

...State, 451 So.2d 458, 461 (Fla. 1984), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. June 14, 1988); Finklea v. State, 471 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see Vazquez v. State, 405 So.2d 177, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part, 419 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 1982); § 90.403, Fla....

...of the doctrine to its outer limits. I think we are treading dangerously near if not overstepping the ill-defined dividing line between "propensity" and "pattern of criminality," (see Ehrhardt, § 404.17) and may be sidestepping the proscription of section 90.403, Florida Evidence Code, under which relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, etc....

...A person who believed that he was in the presence of police detectives generally would not state that he had just shot up illegal drugs. Based on the appellant's defense at trial, the probative value of the testimony outweighed its prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Evidence of collateral crimes or bad acts is admissible only when relevant to prove a material fact at issue. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). Moreover, even relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...prior act testimony is simply not present. Where admissible evidence is both relevant and prejudicial, it is the trial judge's function, not ours, to weigh those factors and rule on the admissibility. The trial judge did just that in this case. See § 90.403, Fla....

...We believe the holding in Waddy applies here. The prior beating was simply not relevant to the issue of whether this particular beating was so severe as to constitute aggravated child abuse by malicious punishment. In addition, we agree with appellant's objection on section 90.403 grounds; i.e., that the prejudicial effect of the evidence of the prior incident in October clearly out-weighed any probative value that it offered....

...According to the literature, the discretion of the court in determining the admissibility of evidence of a parent's or other adult's prior maltreatment of children is limited primarily only by the companion rule — Federal Rule 403, corresponding to section 90.403, Florida Evidence Code — which provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially out-weighed by the danger of prejudice, confusion or waste of time....

...cess concerns as well as the Sixth Amendment, and a defendant's right to a full and fair cross-examination is absolute). However, in the instant case, the facts as presented at trial do not support the finding of a due process violation. In Florida, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2004), authorizes the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence where the evidence's prejudice outweighs its probative value....

...Id. In the instant case, the prior incident of false reporting did not involve appellant and was not made concerning allegations of sexual abuse. As such, the evidence lacked the necessary relevance needed to amount to a due process violation. See § 90.403, Fla....

...ce presented, it should not be kept from them merely because it reveals the commission of crimes not charged."). Further, the photographs' probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury. See § 90.403, Fla....

...State, 850 So.2d 417, 427 (Fla. 2002); Czubak v. State, 570 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990). The photographs at issue here—which merely show a group of young adults partying at the beach—present less danger of unfair prejudice than photographs that we have held admissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...525, 515 A.2d 18, 20 (1986); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 316 Pa.Super. 46, 462 A.2d 785, 787 (1983); 1 Barbara E. Bergman & Nancy Hollander, Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 4:13, at 328 (15th ed.1997). Such evidence of threats is, of course, subject to exclusion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, if the probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice....

...Owens, 97 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1957). Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (1979). Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...The appellant responded with a motion in limine, contending in part that the statements were inconsistent with each other and with evidence to be presented at trial and concluding generally that they lacked trustworthiness and reliability. He also asserted that under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991), their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...confrontation." Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372, 1377 (Fla. 1994). Furthermore, in a situation involving several child hearsay statements determined to be admissible under section 90.803(23), a defendant may still invoke the protection afforded by section 90.403 by seeking to "exclude successive hearsay witnesses whose testimony of prior consistent statements merely bolsters and adds credence to the child victim's testimony." Perry v....

...State, 593 So.2d 620, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla. 1992). Thus, such evidence, although properly admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under section 90.803(23), may nevertheless be excluded under the balancing test found in section 90.403 if the trial court determines that "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Pardo v....

...90.803(23) prior to their introduction at trial. Furthermore, in the event the trial court determines these multiple statements to be admissible under the statute, it should once again engage in the "probative value-unfair prejudice" analysis under section 90.403....

...vel of error committed by the trial court. That a photograph is prejudicial does not justify its exclusion as evidence; rather, a relevant photograph must be unfairly prejudicial to be excluded. See Sexton v. State, 697 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.1997) (“Section 90.403 does not bar the introduction of all evidence that is prejudicial ...; indeed, as a practical matter, almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant.”)....

...State, 787 So.2d 786, 794 (Fla.2001) (“Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court, a ruling on admissibility of such evidence [gruesome photographs] will not be disturbed.”); Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000) (“We review a trial court’s ruling on a section 90.403 objection on an abuse of discretion standard.”) (citing State v....

...discussion during which Peters said to Love, "Do you think it's okay to call me cracker, nigger?" The trial judge refused to admit the testimony, ruling that the prejudicial effect of the testimony substantially outweighed its probative value under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...rida Statutes (2006), such discretion is "constrained by a defendant's right to confront adverse *286 witnesses." Smith, 404 So.2d at 169. Similarly, the Sixth Amendment narrows a trial court's discretion to exclude evidence of a witness' bias under section 90.403....

...as they did at the scene of the arrest, then the minimal probative value of the words heard by an unidentified declarant, little more than a rumor, was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice from the inflammatory accusation. See § 90.403, *287 Fla....

...The determination of whether to admit collateral-crime evidence involves the defendant's constitutional right to due process. Specifically, "[c]ollateral crime evidence violates a defendant's right to due process if it is so prejudicial that it denies the defendant a fair trial." McLean, 934 So.2d at 1261. Accordingly, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), states in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, *1096 confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...izing the collateral-crime evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's overruling the defense's objections and in denying the motion for mistrial. The trial court took steps to avoid the danger of undue prejudice in accordance with section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...ings) shown to be defendant's property. Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...e prior act; and (4) the presence or lack of intervening circumstances. This list is not exclusive. The trial courts should also consider other factors unique to the case. Factors other than the potential for unfair prejudice are also pertinent in a section 90.403 analysis....

...he method would require departing from all common sense and reason or would require adoption of an entirely new and totally unauthenticated formula in the field of appraising." This was not the reason the evidence was excluded. The judge relied upon section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...1st DCA 1976). Also, the trial court was well within its broad discretion in excluding the insurance application. This was a matter of weighing the probative value of the evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues under section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code....

...ble when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity." In addition, the trial court should also exclude otherwise relevant evidence if the probative value of that evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403; Audano v....

...Although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the brief testimony of the mother in this case, we caution that the prejudicial impact of this type of evidence could, under different circumstances, outweigh its probative value. *1209 § 90.403, Fla....

...are not reliable. The mock jury results and opinion testimony derived therefrom have little or no probative value, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice or confusion of issues, justifying exclusion under section 90.403....

...the victim's testimony that an offense occurred and to rebut the defendant's contention that the victim's testimony is fabricated. The admissibility of similar fact evidence is determined by the interaction of the rules set forth in sections 90.402, 90.403, and 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...vant solely to prove bad character or propensity," § 90.404(2)(a), or if its "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence," § 90.403....

...more than one child would fabricate similar false allegations against the same person"). And there is no reason to believe that the probative value of such similar acts evidence would be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice," § 90.403, Fla....

...employed, practices a vocation, or is enrolled a student for any period of time in this state. § 775.21(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (2007). See also § 943.0435(1)(c), Fla. Stat. [2] Appellant failed to object at trial on undue prejudice grounds pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...argues that: (i) her due process rights were violated because the trial judge watched two police videotapes outside the presence of the parties and all counsel, (ii) the videotapes were inadmissible as evidence pursuant to section 90.410, Florida Statutes (2000), (iii) the videotapes were inadmissible as evidence pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), (iv) the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof from appellee Florida Department of Children and Families to her by overruling the judgments of the guardian ad litem and expert with no factual find...

...ative waiver of the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witness; a personal on-the-record waiver by the defendant himself was not required). The arguments that the videotapes were inadmissible as evidence pursuant to sections 90.410 and 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000) were not preserved by objection to the trial court....

...y for the purpose of showing bad character or propensity, ... and such evidence, even if relevant, should not be admitted if its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice.” Smith v. State, 866 So.2d 51, 61 (Fla.2004); see also § 90.403, Fla....

...ny.' "); see also Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 278 (Fla. 2003) ("The trial court's discretion is limited by the rules of evidence."). As for prejudice being greater than proof, the notion comes from a Florida Statute of doubtful bearing, namely section 90.403. [4] In Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1992), the court explained that the concerns reposed in section 90.403 are those underlying the common law rule barring proof of prior consistent statements. Under what theory would the "probative" weight of constitutionally required cross examination lie within the section 90.403 powers of the trial judge to exclude unfairly prejudicial testimony that would be contrary to the state's case? I find it very difficult to comprehend the reliance on the concept of prejudice being weightier than cross examination being a proper basis to bar the subject of the Pomeroy matter entirely. [5] The section 90.403 terminology refers to unfair prejudice....

...If this kind of cross examination is always relevant and admissible to carry out the essential right of the accused to confront witnesses, on what theory could its adverse effect on the State's case ever outweigh its discrediting value? No state statute, certainly not section 90.403, can overpower the Confrontation Clause. Frankly I doubt that section 90.403 has any application to this kind of cross examination except to determine whether it has become cumulative or harassing....

...Rowley suffered no physical injury at the initial traffic stop. [2] The officer answered "Yes" to the question "You weren't involved in the Pomeroy matter?," which suggests that he was not involved. [3] Which the parties homophonically refer to as "K-9" duty. [4] § 90.403, Fla....

...anger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."). [5] In this case we can rule out the idea of cumulative evidence because the judge ruled the entire line of questioning out. [6] § 90.403, Fla....

...iently linked it to the appellants. Consequently, any probative value it may have had was substantially outweighed by the danger of its unfair prejudice, as well as its tendency to confuse and mislead the jury, and it should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...The state was entitled to use the evidence as long as it did not become a feature of the trial. Id. at 968, 970; Denmark v. State, 646 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Here, the evidence did not become a feature of the trial, and its probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect. § 90.403, Fla....

...Counsel suggested that this was "blood money" and that Ford "shouldn't be [allowed] to keep that money." Although there is not a specific provision in the Florida Evidence Code directly pertaining to the admissibility of similar accident evidence, sections 90.401 [3] and 90.403, [4] Florida Statutes (1997), are applicable....

...[2] Nevertheless, under the facts of this case, the admission of post-accident remedial measures was also improper and constitutes reversible error. [3] Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1997), states: Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. [4] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), states, in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...ral offenses . . . share any similarity." McLean, 934 So.2d at 1259. Even under the relaxed standard of admissibility codified at section 90.404(2)(b), however, evidence of other acts of child molestation is subject to relevancy requirements and the section 90.403 balancing test....

...less relevant they are and the more likely it is that their probative value will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Id. (quoting § 90.403, Fla....

...Initially, the trial court stated that defense counsel made insufficient efforts to locate and subpoena Vega for trial. The defense, however, provided the trial court with law stating that proof of unavailability is not necessary to introduce prior sworn testimony. Thereafter, the trial court decided to use a 90.403 analysis to keep the evidence out....

...court sentenced the defendant to 30 years in prison. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding *943 Vega's prior testimony. The State contends that the trial court properly excluded the evidence under a 90.403 analysis because the testimony would have only confused and mislead the jury....

...cross, and redirect examination. Conversely, evidence may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. SALTER, J. (concurring). I concur that Ms. Vega's prior trial testimony was relevant, admissible, and erroneously excluded. The State did not actually raise and argue an objection based on 90.403....

...by the defense if (as here) the opposing party was afforded a full opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The trial court then observed that the Ehrhardt commentary on 90.803(22) included *944 a comment that "all evidence is always subject to a 90.403 analysis." The State expressed concerns that it had insufficient time to subpoena Ms....

...Vega (because it would want to cross-examine her on certain points in person), that the State would need additional rebuttal witnesses, and that reading the transcript of Ms. Vega's prior trial testimony might take two days. Ultimately, the prejudice found by the trial court for purposes of 90.403 was "gamesmanship" in demanding speedy trial followed by the failure to find and subpoena Ms....

...The trial court also stated that both sides had called Ms. Vega's testimony "totally incredible" and that "the testimony would only confuse the jury." A review of Ms. Vega's prior trial testimony does not reveal the kinds of prejudice or unfairness to be weighed under section 90.403. Late notice or "gamesmanship" regarding the use of the testimony in the defense case is a different issue governed by other rules and decisions. The burden is on the party objecting to the admissibility of the evidence on the basis of 90.403 "to demonstrate that the probative value is `substantially outweighed' by one of the countervailing factors." Ehrhardt, § 403.1 at 184 (footnote and citation omitted)....

..., including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. Under section 90.403, "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." We recognize that o...

...ts probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Indeed, "relevancy is not the only test for admissibility." Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1, 21 (Fla.2003) (citing Sexton v. State, 697 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.1997)). Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008), even if evidence is relevant, it may be inadmissible if the "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of...

...Here, however, the record does not show that the trial court weighed the probative value of the evidence against prejudicial impact before deciding to admit the *887 evidence. The record is thus silent as to what factors, if any, the court considered in overruling the section 90.403 objection....

...vagina. [2] Defense counsel specifically argued that the probative value of evidence of the victim's suicide attempts was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, thus preserving the error for appeal and obligating the trial court to apply the section 90.403 balancing test. See Reynolds v. State, 660 So.2d 778, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (stating that counsel must specifically object to the admission of relevant evidence under section 90.403 to require the trial court to resolve the issue and to preserve the issue for appeal)....

...act outweighs its probative value. Henry v. State, 574 So.2d 73, 75 (Fla. 1991); State v. Vazquez, 419 So.2d 1088, 1090 (Fla. 1982); Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 909 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981). See § 90.403, Fla....

...Before the trial court excludes such evidence, the probative value of the evidence must be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Bryan v. State, 533 So.2d 744, 747 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 1765, 104 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989) (citing § 90.403, Fla....

...This Court has explained that “any fact relevant to prove a fact in issue is admissible into evidence unless its admissibility is precluded by some specific rule of exclusion.” Bryant v. State, 235 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla.1970) (quoting Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654, 658 (Fla.1959)). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of...

...I pointed out that the Florida Evidence Code, particularly sections 90.401, .402, .403 and.702, Florida Statutes, contains no requirement of a novel scientific technique's general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs; that all relevant evidence is deemed admissible unless, pursuant to section 90.403, it should be excluded on grounds of prejudice or confusion....

...Indeed, the only specific authority cited in Ward directly supporting its conclusion that such testimony is reliable is Kruse v. State , which Ward described as holding that "expert testimony on posttraumatic stress syndrome [is] admissible in a child sexual assault case when proven relevant under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and more probative than prejudicial." Id. Obviously, the Ward court's references to the term "relevant" and to section 90.403 (the Evidence Code's balancing test) strongly infer that the court in Ward reached its decision by employing the relevance standard and not that of Frye....

...Glendening reiterated the time-worn rule recognizing that the admissibility of expert opinion testimony is tested on appeal by the abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. It is obvious that in formulating the above procedure, the court relied exclusively on sections 90.403 and 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code and not on Frye....

...t in holding the limitation of cross-examination herein to be error. The threshold test for admissibility of evidence elicited on cross-examination is relevance, and the controlling provisions of the Florida Evidence Code are sections 90.401 through 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...as of critical importance. Accordingly, his testimony as to the location from which he made the observations was material and logically relevant. As noted in Brown, logically relevant evidence "may yet be inadmissible if it is not legally relevant." Section 90.403 sets forth the test for legal relevance, providing that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." However, none of these circumstances were present in the case before us, so the testimony was legally relevant under 90.403....

...Thus, the existence of that firearm was marginally relevant to Green's participation in the charged crimes. However, even relevant evidence should be excluded when the relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion or unfair prejudice. See § 90.403....

...egar in the milk with the hope that it may later be strained out. It is obvious from the above quoted comments of the trial judge that he was concerned that any probative value from these entries might be overcome by prejudice to the pedestrian. FEC section 90.403 authorizes the trial judge to exclude concededly relevant evidence on a finding that it is prejudicial....

...There is no indication whatsoever in the record that the report was relied on for its truth. Therefore, the report is not hearsay. § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1991). Additionally, the probative value of the report, to show Player's diligence in carrying out the investigation, outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...ecause he had been intimidated by Victorino. His lack of remorse after having been arrested for *958 what had occurred would seem to be at odds with this contention and thus relevant to disprove it. Further, such evidence was not unduly prejudicial. § 90.403, Fla....

...between the victim's sister and her two brothers as against the school board's argument that such evidence was relevant to demonstrate that the victim's psychological injuries could have been caused by her knowledge of such incestuous relations. See § 90.403, Fla....

...tinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla.2000). Florida statutory law excludes such opinion testimony, regardless of its relevance, "on the grounds that its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant." Id.; see § 90.403, Fla....

...We begin with the basic premise that for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2002); Gore v. State, 719 So.2d 1197, 1199 (Fla.1998). However, when the probative value of relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, it is inadmissible. § 90.403, Fla....

...ulterated and as it actually transpired. The conversation, as relevant evidence, was admissible and not unduly prejudicial such that the trial court should have required its redaction in accordance with the relevant section of our evidence code. See § 90.403, Fla....

...hat the entire settlement agreement should be admitted into evidence. After reviewing the agreement, the trial court held that it was not admissible because the probative value of the agreement was outweighed by its potential prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...y. In this case the actual crime weapon was not found. McKenney argues that the trial court erred in allowing a State witness to exhibit the firearm to the jury because the prejudicial effect on the jury substantially outweighed any probative value. § 90.403, Fla....

...Unlike this case, in Floyd it could have been argued that the defendant's intention to commit a crime in the structure coalesced after he entered the victim's home. On the state's cross appeal, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making a ruling under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...1st DCA 1983); Francis v. State, 512 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Trees By and Through Trees v. K-Mart, 467 So.2d 401, 402-403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); review denied, 479 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1985). Otherwise relevant evidence may be inadmissible under section 90.403, "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." A broad discretion rests with the trial court to de...

...ance. The general rule is that "[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2009). "Relevant evidence is [defined as] evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2009). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2009), establishes a limitation on the introduction of relevant evidence: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues,...

...2009). The plaintiff's cross examination did not violate the rule stated in Faucher. [2] Dr. Dildy also referred to this as a "waste-basket" diagnosis. [3] We also reject the trial court's explanation that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial under section 90.403....

...evidence that inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions." Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 403.1 (2006 ed.); see also Westley v. State, 416 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (same). Unfair prejudice within the meaning of section 90.403 does not arise from relevant inquiries directed at experts offering contrary opinions relevant to a material issue at trial....

...incrimination at trial. As a matter of Florida evidentiary law, a defendant’s pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is generally deemed ambiguous, and any probative value is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2013). We therefore approve the decision of the Fourth District reversing Horwitz’s conviction and remanding for a new trial. BACKGROUND Donna Horwitz was charged with f...

...value will be outweighed by unfair prejudice. Evidence is “inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...(2008). However, even if evidence is relevant, it is inadmissible “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...of welfare benefits as affecting motivation to work would still be impermissible. The very image of a plaintiff as one who accepts governmental hand-outs carries a substantial likelihood of prejudice that outweighs any marginal probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994) (citation omitted). However, even "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...As then Chief Justice Canady pointed out in a dissenting opinion, in Jaggers the past abuse allegations were not against the same person as the later allegations. Id. at 1101 (Canady, C.J., dissenting). However, the Pantoja plurality opinion mentioned this as an important factor. . Florida’s equivalent is found in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007).

...to introduce the expert opinion. Specifically, (1) the opinion evidence must be helpful to the trier of fact; (2) the witness must be qualified as an expert; (3) the opinion evidence must be applied to evidence offered at trial; and (4) pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991), the evidence, although technically relevant, must not present a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value....

...Our review of the record has revealed no abuse of the trial court's discretion in these preliminary findings. *191 Furthermore, our review of the computer animation videotape in the context of this record convinces us that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in its balancing analysis pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991). See Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1991)(trial court has broad discretion in determining whether evidence should be admitted when there is a section 90.403 objection)....

...Consequently, the exclusion of this evidence was not error. Even if the trial judge was mistaken to say that the evidence was not logically relevant, he would have been duty bound to hold that it was legally irrelevant and therefore inadmissible under section 90.403....

...See § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2002). The majority affirmed, reasoning that, even though the trial court erred on its determination of relevance, the ruling should nevertheless be upheld because the evidence in question should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes. If any one statute on the books in Florida, and particularly any statute in the Evidence Code, begs the exercise of sound discretion by a trial judge, it is section 90.403....

...In applying the balancing test, the trial court necessarily exercises its discretion. State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla. 1988); see Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 309 (Fla.1997). Accordingly, trial courts are possessed of broad discretion in making determinations under section 90.403. See, e.g., Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994); McClain, 525 So.2d at 422. The question of bias, at issue in the present case, "is subject to balancing under the provisions of section 90.403, and a trial court's determination of how far an inquiry into bias may proceed is within the trial court's discretion." Tobin v....

...By its application of the "tipsy coachman" rule in the present case, the majority has essentially applied a trial court standard of discretion in a case where the trial court never exercised discretion itself. As a result, this court's application of its own discretion under section 90.403 is not subject to review under any standard and, arguably, the whole purpose of the statute has been defeated because the trial court has never made the critical, initial consideration....

...(3) IF THE RULE DOES ESTABLISH A JURISDICTIONAL THRESHOLD, WHAT IS THAT THRESHOLD? On the majority's rationale for affirming, we should certify the following question: MAY A DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL UTILIZE THE "TIPSY COACHMAN" DOCTRINE BY APPLYING SECTION 90.403, FLORIDA STATUTES, IN A CASE WHERE THE TRIAL COURT HAS NEVER EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION CONCERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCE IN QUESTION? Finally, we should certify direct and express conflict on the restitution question....

court’s additional gatekeeping function under section 90.403 as “critical” with respect to admission of

defendants the right to a fair trial. See, e.g., § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2008) (excluding relevant but unduly

...on 90.803(23) are met — whether or not the child testifies at trial. That is not, however, the end of the inquiry. Although the child's statements cannot be excluded as hearsay, the statements, like any other evidence, are subject to analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). Thus, the defendant can move for exclusion of the evidence under section 90.403 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." The Kopko court took the position that the presentation...

...As a result, the Kopko court imposed a categorical "one witness" limitation where, as here, the child victim was able to testify fully about the events in question. While the Evidence Code does not support the categorical limitation devised by Kopko, it does contain a mechanism in section 90.403 by which to evaluate any claim that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We conclude that the order in limine should not have been entered on the basis of Kopko, and accordingly quash the order under review. This ruling is without prejudice to the defendant's right to submit a motion under section 90.403....

...SFY SUBSECTION 90.803(23), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), AND THE CHILD IS ABLE TO TESTIFY FULLY AT TRIAL, MUST THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS BE EXCLUDED SOLELY BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY THE CHILD, OR IS THE TEST FOR EXCLUSION THAT FOUND IN SECTION 90.403, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)? Certiorari granted; question certified; conflict certified....

...� 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2010). “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id. § 90.403; see also Delhall v....

...le reason for the State to offer the photograph was to inflame the jurors' emotions. Conner also argued that any possible probative value of the photograph was clearly outweighed by its prejudicial impact and therefore it was also inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...The fact that an adult male has two used condoms in his bedroom trash can, without more, merely suggests that he is sexually active. That fact is not overly relevant to establish that he is molesting his daughter. If anything, the slight probative value of the condoms might be out-weighed by their prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...rgument, relied heavily upon Deputy Nygren's testimony. Carrillo did not testify at his trial. His sister, Daisy Otero, testified that after the incident Lackey told her that Carrillo raised a chair, but not in anger, and not toward her. Pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), relevant evidence is inadmissible in a trial where the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...Shelton essentially resolved a similar question raised in this court's earlier holding in Flores v. Allstate Insurance Co., 833 So.2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), in which we noted that a secondary issue of a PIP claim in a UM action could prejudicially outweigh any probative value under section 90.403....

...Because the record does not support the trial court's finding, we hold the trial court erred in ruling there was a constitutional denial of confrontation of the witness or that there was a denial of an opportunity by Wells to confer with his attorney. DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WAS MERELY CUMULATIVE Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987) provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by ......

...State, 66 So.3d 912, 918 (Fla.2011) (citing Dorsett v. State, 944 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). Like all evidence, evidence of matters inextricably intertwined with the charged offense is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...[1] He seeks a new trial, claiming error because the court permitted the State to introduce Williams [2] rule testimony about a similar incident involving another youth. We hold that the prejudicial effect of a portion of the challenged evidence outweighed any probative value it had in this case. See § 90.403, Fla....

...concerning admissibility of Williams rule evidence in child molestation cases. See McLean v. State, 854 So.2d 796, 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). [4] But even under this relaxed standard, the circuit court still must perform its gatekeeping function under section 90.403, that is, it must weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. See id. at 802; see also Fla. S. Comm. on Judiciary, CS for SB 2012 (2001) Staff Analysis 4 (Apr. 18, 2001) (on file with comm.) ("However the evidence would still be subject to the s. 90.403, F.S., scrutiny of weighing its probative value against its prejudicial effect.")....

..., the testimony of the personnel assistant could have helped to bolster the credibility of plaintiff's testimony before the jury. We do not find the exclusion of this evidence justified as constituting "needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...vents and hearsay statements of a third party not on trial, the events and statements which took place after the appellant was taken home were inadmissible because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...ome" photographs was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Although the photographs [1] in question are not pleasant to look at, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting them into evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

...that the opinion evidence can be applied to evidence offered at trial. These provisions embody a liberal policy on the admission of expert evidence, generally rendering such evidence admissible to the extent that it is helpful to the trier of fact. Section 90.403 adds a fourth test barring evidence that, although technically relevant, presents a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value." 483 So.2d at 1384....

...defendant's commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant." However, collateral crimes evidence that is relevant may also be excluded under section 90.403 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Relevancy is "the threshold question," and the collatera...

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403....

on "prior special familiarity." See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). Not only are there significant

...In the instant case, evidence of the cash seized at the time of the arrest, which occurred two days after the drug transaction, was irrelevant and admitted erroneously. Moreover, had we found this evidence to be relevant, this testimony would still be inadmissible based on section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991): "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [and] misleading the jury......

...y reference to them. Of course, even relevant evidence is inadmissible if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...("Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.") Otherwise relevant evidence is not admissible "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence...." See § 90.403, Fla....

...In the case now before us the similarity between the collateral act of molestation perpetrated by Mr. Triplett with respect to another young woman and the charged molestation was a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing of the evidence required by section 90.403....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading a jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403. The similarity of the collateral act of molestation and charged offense is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403....

...The trial courts are gatekeepers in ensuring that evidence of prior acts of child molestation is not so prejudicial that the defendant is convicted based on the prior sexual misconduct. . . . . . . . The trial court's gatekeeping function is critical. In every case, the trial court must conduct the weighing required by section 90.403....

...iled a motion in limine asking that evidence of alleged illegal drug use be precluded because it would be irrelevant, and because "introduction of such evidence is likely to confuse or mislead the jury and is more prejudicial than probative," citing section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code....

...Section 90.402 states that "[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2004). As Professor Ehrhardt again explains, section 90.402 excludes by logical implication all evidence which is not relevant. Florida Evidence § 402.1, at 162 n. 1. Finally, section 90.403 states in pertinent part that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...e a feature of the trial. As such, any marginal probative value it might have had was clearly outweighed "by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues [and] misleading the jury." Accordingly, its use should have been prohibited pursuant to section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code....

...ance. The general rule is that "[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law." § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2007). "Relevant evidence is [defined as] evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2007). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), establishes a limitation on the introduction of relevant evidence: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues,...

...he defendant murdered the victim. The court reiterated the basic proposition that a witness' opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case is not admissible. It explained that "such testimony is precluded on the authority of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), which excludes relevant evidence on the grounds that its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant." Id....

...(2010). However, even if evidence is relevant, it is inadmissible “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...he defendant said, I’m going to kill that MF.” The State also argued that the statement was an admission by the defendant that went to his intent and that the testimony would show “state of mind.” The defense further objected on the basis of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2010), and argued that even though the defense asked Hicks if she had called the detective on two other occasions, the defense did not open the door to anything....

...Because the amount of cocaine detected in this case was not an "unquantifiable" trace, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine in accordance with State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420 (Fla.1988), whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...Thus, defendant's impaired state at the time of the accident may have resulted from the combined effect of both alcohol and cocaine. However, even if probative, our supreme court recognized in McClain that such evidence is properly excludable under section 90.403 if the "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." 525 So.2d at 421. This involves a balancing test which must be performed by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion with the proviso that: Certainly, most evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered. Section 90.403 does not bar this evidence; it is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions....

...In circumstances such as this, we strongly suggest that prosecutors err on the side of caution by omitting these statements and that trial courts consider the danger that the prejudicial effect of such evidence will substantially outweigh any probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...For example, three teenagers, a six-year-old, and a yo-yo present a different situation than a 21-year-old with a handgun. We find no error in the trial court's ruling precluding appellant from questioning the detective about the police reports. See also § 90.403, Fla....

...As we note, the existence of probable cause is an issue of law for the court, not for expert witnesses, to decide.") (citation omitted). In addition, expert testimony should be precluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Evidence must be relevant in order to be admissible. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. [(2009)]. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence "tending to prove or disprove a material fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. [(2009)]. While all admissible evidence must be relevant, not all relevant evidence is admissible; section 90.403 mandates that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403, Fla....

...ble in evidence. Id. at 1231. A gun different than the one used in a crime is not relevant to prove that the crime occurred. Id. "Any marginal relevance in this type of testimony [is] substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice" under section 90.403....

consideration still was not an abuse of discretion. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, renders otherwise relevant

...would be admissible in a motion hearing on the issue of probable cause. See § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2006). However, in a jury trial, the relevance of general criminal behavior testimony "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403, Fla....

...unity to impeach such testimony with the Almaden's postaccident admission that the cork "will eject" spontaneously. Almaden argues that evidence of the postaccident label was correctly rejected because it was unfairly prejudicial within the terms of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...e to the opposing party. Virtually all evidence is prejudicial or it isn't material. The prejudice must be "unfair." 561 F.2d at 618. We do not view Almaden's postaccident admission that the cork "will eject" to be *27 "unfair" within the meaning of section 90.403....

...1994) (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 404.17 (1993 ed.)). The admissibility of both categories—similar fact evidence and dissimilar fact evidence—is determined by its relevancy and, of course, subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...crime charged. As addressed in Griffin, this is not Williams-rule evidence, but relevant dissimilar fact evidence. Thus, we must consider each crime separately to determine its relevancy to the charges here and, of course, keep the balancing test of section 90.403 in mind....

...e angle. On appeal, Citrus County argues that the trial court erred in admitting a gruesome photograph of the decedent as her body was placed in a body bag at the scene of the accident. Even if relevant, the County argues it was unduly inflammatory. § 90.403, Fla....

...(a), Fla. Stat.) but generally, then Bryan has effectually abolished the need for the Williams Rule and, in the process, has abolished the similar fact exclusionary rule and perhaps even the "unduly prejudical evidence" exclusionary rule codified in section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...[2] Starting from another more distant point, it can be stated that the first rule of evidence law is a rule of admissibility to the effect that all relevant evidence is admissible (§ 90.402, Fla. Stat.); second, relevant evidence that is unduly prejudicial is inadmissible (§ 90.403, Fla....

...In criminal cases dealing with child molestation, a defendant's commission of other acts of child molestation may be considered for its bearing on any matter that is relevant. § 90.404(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005). The admission of such evidence, however, is still subject to the relevancy requirements of section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...See § 90.803(23), Fla. Stat. (2005). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding the probative value of the statements not substantially outweighed by the danger of presenting cumulative evidence. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 668 (Fla.1992); § 90.403, Fla....

...not be admitted to show the emotional suffering that their children endured as a result of being terminated from the program. Such evidence would be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial since it would appeal overtly to the sympathy of the jurors. See § 90.403, Fla....

...er's case to be relevant. We disagree. The trial judge, herself, commented that the prior cases were "substantially similar" to the present case. Next, he argues that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in excluding this evidence under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), in that its probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice....

...dence as “evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” §§ 90.401, .402, Fla. Stat. (2011). And, even if relevant, evidence is inadmissible when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403....

...ttempting to avoid prosecution for the offense on trial, the evidence is not relevant. See id. However, even relevant, probative evidence may be inadmissible “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403, Fla....

...Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 988, 995 (Fla.1997), abrogated on other grounds by Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598 (Fla.2001). Relevant evidence, however, is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403....

...t this challenged evidence was not properly admitted, and the error was so harmful that a new trial is mandated. Improper Admission of Evidence Our resolution of the evidentiary issue focuses upon the application of evidence code sections 90.404 and 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248, 1259 (Fla.2006) (quoting § 90.403)....

...0.404(2)(b). In sum, even assuming that the evidence was marginally relevant, it should have been rejected because otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded where its "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403. We have discussed the negligible probative value of the testimony pertaining to the touching incident and its tendency to establish bad character or propensity. A proper weighing process pursuant to section 90.403 would have required its exclusion....

...on and was not admissible. Requirement for New Trial The final issue is whether the improper admission of the evidence requires the award of a new trial. An appellate court must scrutinize the erroneous admission of evidence for harmless error under section 90.403....

...es not prohibit such evidence in a criminal trial."). Although not statutorily recognized in section 90.610, the possibility of remoteness as a basis for exclusion in a criminal case has been recognized by our Supreme Court through the provisions of section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...rove a material fact." Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

...aned within a day or two of the victim's disappearance. If there had been no such evidence, these tests might not have been relevant, or their relevancy might have been outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. § 90.403, Fla....

of cumulative evidence,” Id. at 1212 (quoting § 90.403, Fla. Stat.). This Court reviews the trial court’s

...§§ 90.401-.402, Fla. Stat. (2001). If the probative value of relevant evidence is "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence," the evidence is inadmissible. § 90.403, Fla....

...The interview with the children's unit in the state attorney's office was videotaped. We conclude that the trial court's determination of reliability is supported by the record. The trial court acted within its discretion in rejecting the defendant's argument that the evidence should be excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...and the cause of death, relieve the state of its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."). Although the photographs were relevant, we must next determine whether their probative value was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Fla....

...e environment, maggots, and animal depredation— circumstances not attributable to him. To the contrary, the severe decomposition around the wife's neck was arguably the result of the crime: as Dr. Perper testified, maggots attack stab wounds first. Section 90.403 required the trial court to balance the photographs' relevance against their prejudicial nature....

...sent his theory of defense, see Vannier v. State, 714 So.2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), this right is subject to the reasonable discretion of the trial judge in controlling the hearing and limiting unnecessary, cumulative, and repetitive testimony. See § 90.403, Fla....

...character of the witness.... Since the probative value of the testimony of a witness who is called only to impeach is low, and the danger is significant that the jury will be prejudiced by the evidence used to attack credibility, the application of § 90.403 will frequently exclude attacks on the credibility of a witness who is called as a device to place the impeaching evidence before the jury....

...to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, we must consider whether the arguably relevant evidence in the statements, namely the victim's fear of appellant, is rendered inadmissible by this extraneous and inadmissible hearsay. Florida Statute 90.403 provides: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. In an authoritative discussion of the balancing process between the admission of Section 90.803(3)(a) state of mind hearsay with Section 90.403, the court in United States v....

...See Jorgenson v. State, 714 So.2d 423, 427 (Fla.1998). However, evidence of other crimes, "even if relevant, should not be admitted if its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice." Bryan v. State, 533 So.2d 744, 746 (Fla.1988); see also § 90.403 ("Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially *562 outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.")....

...bullet in her head or that it would be nice to see her head blown off was unduly prejudicial. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony. A harmless error analysis is applicable to the improper admission of testimony under section 90.403....

a detective. Appellant contends that under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the prejudicial impact of

...See § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2008). However, relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading of the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

...The only evidence at trial was that the defendant's marijuana use "probably" did not affect him at the time of the collision. On the scale of relevancy, such tenuous probative value was "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury." § 90.403, Fla....

...ocaine was so small, it was not possible "to state whether or not the presence of cocaine could have affected the manner of defendant's driving." Id. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order excluding the evidence; the court used a section 90.403 balancing approach to conclude that the minute probative value of the cocaine trace was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice: [I]t is clear that the probative value of the evidence of cocaine in [defendant's] blood was minimal....

...The most we can say about the relationship between these two events is that one occurred very soon after the other, which is not sufficient to make the evidence regarding the first incident admissible under Griffin, particularly when we weigh the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant against the relevancy of the evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

...The alleged molestation occurred about two to three months before the incident with A.E. The State also intended to call as a witness the doctor who examined N.W. Mr. Corson moved, in limine, to exclude the evidence because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value. See § 90.403; McLean v....

...(2009). However, even if evidence is relevant, it is inadmissible “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...A gun different than the one used in a crime is not relevant to prove that the crime occurred. Downs v. State, 65 So.3d 594, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Even if evidence of a defendant’s possession of a different gun is relevant to a material fact in issue, the court must perform the “critical balancing analysis” under section 90.403. Agatheas, 77 So.3d at 1240 . Generally, any marginal relevance in this type of testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.403....

...1st DCA 2009) (“In general; all relevant evidence is admissible, unless excluded by a specific rule.”). Under section 90.401, Florida Statutes (2013), “[rjelevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” Even though relevant, evidence is inadmissible under, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2013), “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of.cumulative evidence.” Generally, evidence of “...

...at the statement will unfairly prejudice the defendant, confuse the issues at trial, mislead the jury, or result in the presentation of needlessly cumulative evidence." Id. at 668. In the instant case, however, the trial court's failure to conduct a section 90.403 analysis of the hearsay testimony is not preserved for review....

...It is now firmly established that merely because such hearsay statements may be properly admitted in evidence under section 90.803(23), the trial court is not relieved of its obligation to determine whether such evidence is nevertheless inadmissible under section 90.403 (because "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence")....

...803(23): However, we also agree with the court below that this is not the end of the inquiry. As that court stated: Although the child's statements cannot be excluded as hearsay, the statements, like any other evidence, are subject to analysis under section 90.403, *278 Florida Statutes (1989). Thus, the defendant can move for exclusion of the evidence under section 90.403 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." [ State v....

...1991)] (emphasis added). Thus, although the admission of a child victim's hearsay statement is not excludable as hearsay or as a prior consistent statement under the statute, the admission of the statement is subject to the balancing test found in section 90.403....

...n language of the statute, while the Pardo court took account of the mechanism which already existed in the Florida evidence code for excluding the needless or prejudicial presentation of cumulative evidence. Of course, the same concerns embodied in section 90.403 are those which underlie the common law rule against prior consistent statements....

...say statements to them as being unduly cumulative and prejudicial, as discussed by the supreme court in the Pardo. The probative value of this evidence did not outweigh the obvious prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial and thus violated section 90.403....

...ad said but implicitly vouched for the accuracy and truthfulness of those statements. Yet we cannot reach this error on this appeal because counsel for the defendant failed to object or move to strike the testimony on any of the grounds set forth in section 90.403....

...rror). Under issue II, the appellant argues that while the testimony of several witnesses regarding hearsay statements made by the victim were admissible under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, the statements were nevertheless inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...do v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla.1992). However, the court noted that the evidence could still be deemed inadmissible if the *46 trial court determined that the probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...Id. at 667-68. In Reynolds v. State, 660 So.2d 778, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the appellant argued that "the trial court erred in overruling Appellant's objections at trial, that the four hearsay witnesses' testimony was `cumulative'" in violation of section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...s hearsay statements; however, this was never ruled upon or raised again. The defense counsel's statement regarding the state "parading in witnesses" is similar to the "cumulative" objection made in Reynolds, which the court found did not preserve a section 90.403 objection....

...Accordingly, we find that the appellant's argument that the trial court erred by allowing the hearsay testimony of multiple witnesses has not been properly preserved for appellate review. See id.; Anderson v. State, 598 So.2d 276, 276-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that although under Pardo trial court must conduct section 90.403 analysis, appellant did not preserve that issue for appellate review)....

...To allow inquiry into the jurors' emotions and feelings of inadequacy as they go through this often difficult process is to expect something closer to perfection than they and our judicial system can legitimately be expected to give. Aragon v. State, 853 So.2d 584, 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). [2] Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...exclusion. In this regard, the trial court has broad discretion not only in determining the relevance of evidence, but also in determining whether its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect, thereby rendering such evidence admissible. See § 90.403, Fla....

...to the crimes charged. Also, the court ruled the evidence did not show these crimes occurred in a "familial or custodial" setting and thus could not be admitted for corroboration. The trial court also made the additional finding, in conformity with section 90.403, Florida Statutes, that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...had first been contacted a couple of months ago by state investigators to find out her knowledge of events at O'Brien's home. These cases have provided the opportunity for the en banc majority to severely limit the Williams rule by broadly applying section 90.403....

...umption" that the evidence of the other three alleged victims qualifies for admission under section 90.404 seems inescapable. The majority theorizes that this " Williams rule" evidence is nevertheless properly excluded by the lower court pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), because the prejudicial effect (i.e....

...This, in turn, assumes that evidence regarding other acts of the defendant's sexual misconduct is not truly necessary to impeach the defendant's version of events. [1] Such an analysis unduly restricts the use of section 90.404. By assuming the "bad act" testimony is inherently unfairly prejudicial, section 90.403 will always permit its exclusion unless some compelling need can be shown to outweigh the unfair prejudice....

...its exclusion. The fact that, by its nature, it also may suggest bad character or propensity should not create a presumption against admission. As our supreme court has emphasized, in making an evidentiary ruling in child sexual abuse cases applying section 90.403, it is appropriate for the trial court to balance the rights of criminal defendants with those of the child victims whom the statutes seek to protect....

...of the fact that he was "the boss of them" to commit a variety of sexual acts on these children using means calculated to discourage them from telling anyone. The majority opinion does not address the trial court's stated reasons for believing that section 90.403 authorized exclusion....

...State, 130 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1961). However, even "relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence... ." § 90.403, Fla....

...tate's presentation to the jury during the penalty phase of this prosecution, if it is reached, and argued successfully that this evidence should be considered only by the trial judge because its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...probative value, if any, was outweighed by its unfair prejudice, and that it constituted improper bolstering of Junior’s testimony. The trial court ruled that Appellant could not discuss the Elliott case verdict because, among other reasons, under Fla. Stat. § 90.403, “the prejudice would outweigh any probative value,” and excluded the Notice of Revocation and the court’s ruling on it as irrelevant.1 R.E....

...M at 16; see R.E. Doc. 8 Ex. M at 14. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the Notice, finding that the Notice’s admission would necessitate admission of the trial court’s quashing of the Notice and determined, under Fla. Stat. § 90.403, that the Notice’s probative value did not outweigh the prejudice it would cause the 2 Before the panel of the Florida District Court of Appeal issued its opinion, which would have reversed the lower court, the full appe...

...Appellant sought to question Junior about his perceptions of his role in the failure of the Elliott prosecution and to discover 10 Contrary to the assertions of the dissent, we do not address Rule 403 of the Florida Rules of Evidence, Fla. Stat. § 90.403....

...lliot acquittal. Thus, as Judge Barzilay explains, our review is de novo and AEDPA deference does not apply. Cone v. Bell, 129 S.Ct. at 1784 (2009). The dissent appears to suggest that evidence which is properly excludable under Fla. Stat. § 90.403 can never violate the Confrontation Clause, under any set of circumstances. As a threshold matter, this argument was never made by the state, either in this court or any other, and is not properly before this court. In any case, Fla. Stat. § 90.403 asks courts to determine whether relevant evidence is otherwise inadmissible because its probative value is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation...

...Revocation of Terms of Plea Agreement, and (2) the not guilty verdict the jury returned at the trial of Joseph Franklin Elliott. The District Court of Appeal 35 rejected Childers’s claim under Fla. Stat. § 90.403 because the probative value of such evidence was outweighed by the prejudice it would have caused if presented to the jury....

...gnores the commands of AEDPA and Supreme Court precedent, Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989), and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000). That is, instead of determining whether the District Court of Appeal’s § 90.403 ruling is “contrary to ....

...and Williams, and adjudicates Childers’s Confrontation Clause claim as if AEDPA and those decisions were nonexistent. In part I, I demonstrate that under AEDPA, Teague, and Williams, Childers is not entitled to federal habeas relief because the District Court of Appeal applied § 90.403 in a manner that was not contrary to clearly established federal law....

...Notice of Revocation and the Elliott acquittal in conformance with the Florida law of evidence. Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585, 592–96 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (en banc) (per curiam). The court rejected Childers’s Notice of Revocation argument under Fla. Stat. § 90.403, Florida’s counterpart to Federal Rule of Evidence 403.8 Section 90.403 (“Florida 403”), “Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion,” states: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misle...

...probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” The criteria for excluding evidence under Fla. Stat. § 90.403 and the federal rule are substantially the same, except that the latter also permits the exclusion of evidence if the probative value is outweighed by “undue delay [or] waste of time.” 9 As indicated in the text supra, t...

...oth the Notice of Revocation and the court’s rejection of the Notice were irrelevant. The District Court of Appeal disagreed; both pieces of evidence were relevant. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on another ground, an application of § 90.403, which it was permitted to do under state law....

...unreliable evidence. Because the prejudice to the State that would be created by the admission of the notice to revoke substantially outweighs the very limited probative value of this evidence, the notice was excludable under section 90.403, Florida Statutes. Id....

...engaged in conduct that, in the words of the prosecutor, was "shocking to even an experienced officer." The prejudice flowing from this evidence substantially outweighed any slight probative value it may have had, thus calling for its exclusion. See § 90.403; Henry, 574 So.2d at 75....

...And any—any day— and she could have had a miscarriage."; (2) "I am not going to stick my neck out for you anymore."; (3) "I will not put my hands in the fire for you anymore." Defense counsel had objected that these *325 statements made the telephone call more prejudicial than probative. See § 90.403, Fla....

...After a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding "the statement about past cocaine use is irrelevant to the charge in this case and if such evidence is relevant, the probative value of such evidence is outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the evidence pursuant to Section 90.403, Florida Statutes." The judge focused upon the two-month lapse of time between the charged offense of possession and the time referenced in Blackwell's statement about use of cocaine....

...This court observed that the elements of constructive possession may be shown by a defendant's incriminating statements or conduct, and the statement in question established that the defendant knew that the drugs were present and that they were illicit. See id. The trial court also erred by relying upon section 90.403, Florida Statutes, to exclude the statements based upon undue prejudice....

...nd ammunition found at his mother’s house in Alabama where he was arrested. He contends that because the murder weapon was a nine millimeter and not a 45 caliber, the evidence of the gun found in Alabama was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...oset.” Id. at 1234 . The Supreme Court held that evidence of the gun recovered from the defendant’s backpack at the time of his arrest, which *1069 was not related to the crime, was both irrelevant and unduly “confusing and misleading” under section 90.403....

...use similarity was no longer a criterion for admissibility of such evidence in child abuse cases. However, the state was wrong. In McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2006), the court held section 90.404(2)(b) constitutional and reconciled it with section 90.403 which requires the court to weigh the probative value of evidence with its prejudice....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403. The similarity of the collateral act of molestation and charged offense is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403....

...ed the loss. The extent to which a different insurance carrier paid out claims for damage caused by a different peril could reasonably be expected to muddle the issues properly before the jury, if not raise the specter of “unfair prejudice.” See § 90.403, Fla....

...idence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect”); Webster v. Body Dynamics, Inc., 27 So.3d 805 , 809 n. 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affording “substantial discretion to trial courts to exclude otherwise relevant evidence” pursuant to section 90.403); Children’s Palace, Inc. v. Johnson, 609 So.2d 755, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (according “great deference” to “[a] trial court’s determination under section 90.403”)....

...victed were not relevant to any issue in the case); Sneed v. State, 397 So.2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (same). Moreover, the prejudicial nature of the questions entirely outweighed any slight probative value the questions may have arguendo possessed. § 90.403, Fla....

...Although the State introduced evidence of the threat in its rebuttal case after Jenkins had denied that he *230 made it, this same evidence was properly admissible in the State's case in chief. [2] We hasten to add, however, that the admission of such evidence is still subject to Florida Rule of Evidence section 90.403, and may be excluded in a particular case if the probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice....

...pain. He testified that, at that point, he rolled around in pain, but did not kick or strike either of the deputies. Prior to trial, Porter had filed a motion in limine to prevent the jury from hearing the wife's statement: "He's trying to kill me." Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), states in part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." The State argues that the probative value of the wife's statement wa...

...f intervening circumstances. This list is not exclusive. The trial courts should also consider other factors unique to the case. McLean, 934 So.2d at 1262. Similar fact evidence admitted under section 90.404(2)(b), like all evidence, is subject to a section 90.403 analysis for the danger of unfair prejudice....

...ting detectives that indicated their belief as to the appellant’s guilt and their theory as to what happened. We said, “[n]ot everything a detective says to a defendant during a recorded interrogation is unfairly prejudicial under [F.S. Section] 90.403.” Id....

...Accordingly, there is no basis to argue about the possibility of Morowitz becoming paranoid about suffering a personal injury since, as all parties acknowledge, Morowitz did, in fact, suffer a broken hip. Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...She recalled Appellant's engaging in sexual activity with her during the period following the surgery when she was still bandaged. IV. The Adequacy of the Williams Rule Inquiry Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court violated due process by failing to conduct a thorough balancing test pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), before admitting collateral-crime evidence....

...es (2005), and constitute "child molestation." Noting that propensity is now admissible, the trial court correctly acknowledged that the law still requires the court to conduct a balancing inquiry pursuant to another safeguard evidentiary provision, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), which states: 90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.—Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...Any error in the balancing test is harmless, given that the factors enunciated by the Supreme Court of Florida in McLean, 934 So.2d at 1262, are satisfied by the collateral-crime evidence relating to the prior acts of sexual activity between Appellant and the same victim. McLean states that the section 90.403 balancing test involves the following assessment: In assessing whether the probative value of evidence of previous molestations is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the trial court should evaluate: (1) the sim...

...However, the State may not introduce testimony or evidence pertaining to prior violent felony convictions that is irrelevant, violates the defendant's confrontation rights, or where the probative value of the evidence is far outweighed by prejudicial effect. See Rhodes, 547 So.2d at 1205; see also § 90.403, Fla....

...State, 495 So.2d 744, 745 (Fla.1986). The trial court may not, however, admit evidence that simply relitigates the issue of the defendant's guilt, see Teffeteller, 495 So.2d at 745, or evidence that fails the test balancing probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...he owner of the child pornography also contained on the thumb drive. See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). The trial judge also determined that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by any prejudice to appellant. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Porter, 821 F.2d 968, 974 (4th Cir.1987), petition denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 1108, 99 L.Ed.2d 269 (1988). We agree with and follow these decisions. See generally Perper v. Edell, 44 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1949) (evidence inadmissible when prejudicial effect overcomes probative value); § 90.403, Fla....

...unded on a claim of negligence or breach of contract. We find that the chance that a jury will be improperly prejudiced by knowledge of insurance coverage in either case outweighs the usefulness of the evidence to the finder of fact. See §§ 90.402-90.403, Fla.Stat....

...NOTES [1] Our holding today should not be interpreted to exclude evidence of insurance where there is a provision in the contract between parties which would make it relevant. There was no such contract provision in the instant case. [2] § 90.402 provides: "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law." § 90.403 provides, in relevant part: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."

...ssue required to be proved in the case. Welty v. State, 402 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1981). While the photographs may have been tangentially relevant to appellees' case, their relevance is overwhelmingly outweighed by their gruesome and inflammatory nature. § 90.403, Fla....

...icer; (3) that, during closing argument, the State improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant and made other improper comments; and (4) that the trial court allowed the State to introduce irrelevant, prejudicial evidence in violation of section 90.403 of the Florida Statutes....

...ved and another should not."). Finally, we cannot agree that the evidence concerning Torres-Matmoros' treatment of the victim both before and after the sexual assault at issue here, even if irrelevant, was so prejudicial as to warrant reversal under section 90.403 of the Florida Statutes. See Denmark v. State, 927 So.2d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (finding that the appellate courts "apply a harmless error test to the improper admission of evidence under section 90.403")....

...907, 109 S.Ct. 3219, 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (expert witness). As the supreme court explained in Glendening, "[a]lthough section 90.703 ["Opinion on Ultimate Issue"] would appear to permit such an opinion, such testimony is precluded on the basis of section 90.403 ["Exclusion on Grounds of Prejudice or Confusion"]....

...s admissible portions. Relevant evidence is inadmissible where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the confusion of issues, the misleading of a jury, or the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

...required of an indictment or information. No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal. Relevant evidence should be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...In this case, the defense was able to, and did bring out, that the state's witness was under pending charges both at the time she notified police that Johnson had a television set, and at the time of the trial. Defense brought out the nature of the charges which had then been pending, as well as her previous criminal record. § 90.403; Jackson v....

...For example, “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Castanon, 162 So. 3d at 54 (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat.)....

...4th DCA 2008) (quoting Jones v. State, 678 So.2d 890, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). In Love , the court noted the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses, and that “the Sixth Amendment narrows a trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence of a witness’ bias under section 90.403.” Id....

...and the Employer; the State did not address the Employer's testimony that he heard T.M. speaking in the background and participating in the conversation. . Absent proof T.M. was altering her version of what happened, the evidence presented on proffer is arguably excludable under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2010) as tending to be misleading, even if the evidence is arguably relevant to support an inference of fabrication....

...be an exception to the cited cases where relevant testimony is not used to convert otherwise innocent behavior to evidence of guilt, but, rather, to explain otherwise inexplicable behavior. In such instance, it might be argued that an analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, is applicable to determine whether the probative value of testimony, otherwise relevant, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

...We recognize that relevancy is not the only issue in determining whether to admit evidence of prior acts. Rather, the trial court must also consider whether the probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. See § 90.403; Sexton, 697 So.2d at 837....

...2 (quoting McCormick on Evidence § 293 at 445 (John W. Strong ed., 5th ed. 1999)) (footnote omitted). Professor Ehrhardt agrees with McCormick and states: “If an expert opinion is offered without the expert testifying and being subject to cross-examination, Section 90.403 may require the exclusion of the opinion.” Ehrhardt’s Florida Evidence § 803.6 at 903 (2011) (footnote omitted)....

...laid or the opposing party cannot prove the untrustworthiness of the evidence, the records must still withstand the test of relevancy. Accordingly, a trial judge may exclude the records if they are unfairly prejudicial or confusing.”) (citing *692 § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1991)); Bradley v. Brotman, 836 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Even if the medical record satisfied the business record exception, the opinion still may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial or confusing under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...4 Even though a DNA forensic report prepared for litigation is arguably an advocacy report, we are not prepared to say that such reports categorically lack the presumed trustworthiness of a business record. 5 However, there remains a very significant section 90.403 concern about the admissibility of a DNA forensic report if the expert preparing the report does not testify. The problem for the State on cross-appeal is that it never argued the forensic case report should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...itness will allow the defense to create "speculative and allegedly 'reasonable' doubt,” thereby possibly forcing the State to have to expend great sums of money to bring in their experts to rebut the report. Although such arguments seem to hint at section 90.403 as a basis for the argument, the State never adequately explained how the forensic case report would be unfairly prejudicial or confusing in regards to the work of the jury.

...Some examples given involve the physician testifying for his own patient. The book itself is not part of the record. The jury returned a verdict awarding appellant his past medical expenses of $19,766.38 and future medical expenses of $10,000. However, the jury did not find a permanent injury. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), provides: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Evidence of bias is subject to balancing under the provisions of section 90.403, and a trial court's determination of how far an inquiry into bias may proceed is within the trial court's discretion....

..."Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact ... an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion." Sims v. Brown, *394 574 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1991) (quoting Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So.2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)); accord § 90.403, Fla....

...at 360. We therefore affirm. SHAHOOD, J., concurs specially with opinion. FARMER, J., dissents with opinion. SHAHOOD, J., concurring specially. I agree entirely with the majority. I write only to quote from the statute cited by the majority, to emphasize section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), which provides: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...ially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, (or) misleading the jury...." I conclude that, in this case, deference should be given to the trial judge with respect to the admissibility of the evidence in question based on section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...th a mere limit on how much questioning will be tolerated. It is the difference between allowing some or allowing none at all that the majority confuses. [5] The power to exclude some relevant evidence in its entirety for certain reasons arises from section 90.403, which currently provides: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative eviden...

...In effect the rationale is that it would be an "undue waste of time" to allow the party to impeach the expert with his own book. [6] Neither *398 the trial judge, the defendants nor the majority, however, can cite a single Florida case where a party was utterly precluded under section 90.403 from making any use of non-cumulative, clear evidence of bias and prejudice—indisputably admissible in all other respects—simply because such evidence would amount to an undue waste of time....

...itness and plaintiff's counsel. The doctor and lawyer had agreed to refer cases to each other and had shared the expenses of a runner who recruited clients for both. Plaintiff argued that the court should exclude the cross-examination entirely under section 90.403 because it showed conduct that amounted to a crime....

...the presentation of evidence so as to `avoid needless consumption of time.' Evidence which has minimal probative value can be excluded under section 90.612(1)(b) when it is a waste of time, even though the court cannot exclude it on that basis under section 90.403." Charles W....

...witness and uncalled for by the circumstances."); Mosley v. State, 616 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same); Canales v. Compania de Vapores Realma, S.A., 564 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); DeSantis v. Acevedo, 528 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); § 90.403, Fla....

...that he was previously imprisoned for fondling another child may have been relevant to explain why the child feared Farrell and why he delayed reporting the fondling to his mother, the statement should not have been admitted because its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...uching in this case was not innocent. We disagree that the statement was admissible on this ground. Before admitting this type of evidence, a trial court must weigh its probative value against the danger the evidence may confuse or mislead the jury. § 90.403, Fla....

...matter, the place where appellee fell, that would necessitate use of the photographs for explanatory purposes or that would confer probative value to the photographs outweighing the danger of unfair prejudice and their tendency to mislead the jury. Section 90.403, Florida Evidence Code, provides that relevant evidence is "inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumula...

...l offenses occurred in the familial context or whether they share any similarity.” McLean, 934 So.2d at 1259 . Similarity of the prior act and the charged offense remains part of the analysis to the extent of determining relevancy and applying the section 90.403 balancing test....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403....

...2d DCA 1982) (stating that "whenever a witness takes the stand, he ipso facto places his credibility in issue"). It is also possible that a trial judge could determine that the prejudicial effect of some or all of this evidence outweighed its probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1986); Del Monte Banana Company v. Chacon, 466 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Tilley v. Broward Hospital District, 458 So.2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Morganstine v. Rosomoff, 407 So.2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); § 90.403, Fla....

...y would be questionable since even "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96, 107 (Fla. 2008). “That discretion, however, is limited by the rules of evidence.” Id. Relevant testimony is inadmissible where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...The State sought exclusion of this evidence on the basis that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Such determinations are left to the discretion of the trial judge in the absence of clear legal error. See, e.g., Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747, 759 (Fla.2001) ("Under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1997), relevant testimony may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the likelihood of unfair prejudice. However, the trial court should be given wide discretion in determining whether the evidence is unduly prejudicial."); Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000) ("We review a trial court's ruling on a section 90.403 objection on an abuse of discretion standard....

...The defendant argues on appeal that the introduction of this testimony was improper because its probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Section 90.402, Florida Statutes (2014), provides that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2014), however, states that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presen...

...evidence to be relevant.” Elysee, 920 So. 2d at 1208. Based on the facts in the instant case, we find that the admission of this relevant evidence, which did not become a feature of the trial, did not constitute an abuse of discretion under the balancing test of section 90.403, and certainly did not rise to the level of fundamental error....

...ghed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1992) approving in relevant part State v. Pardo, 582 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); § 90.403, Fla....

...the events supporting the charges. Thus, the audiotape was relevant in that it tended to support Mateo’s defense, and the trial court erred in excluding it from evidence. The State argues that the trial court correctly excluded the audiotape under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2001), because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect....

...State, 589 So.2d 939, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that relevant evidence supporting a defendant’s theory of defense should not be excluded unless no other remedy suffices). Thus, the trial court’s ruling that the audiotape should be excluded in its entirety under section 90.403 constituted an abuse of discretion....

...Speaking more generally, for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2002); Gore v. State, 719 So.2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 1998). However, when the probative value of relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, it is inadmissible. § 90.403, Fla....

...iserable." Id. at 309. The court concluded that Walker's statements were a "significant piece of evidence... that Walker had a motive to murder the victims [the mother and child]." Id. at 310. Thus, the court reasoned, the balancing test required by section 90.403, Florida Statutes, was deemed properly to result in admission of Walker's statements....

...ement and care of" its patients. It did not impeach the testimony of Long Term's president, who testified at trial via deposition that he did not know how many times Long Term had been sued in connection with the care it provided. Furthermore, under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, any relevance the complaint might have had was outweighed by the unfair prejudice against the center....

...For example, the circuit court must still determine preliminary questions concerning the admissibility of the recommendation pursuant to section 90.105, and the court may consider possible exclusion on the grounds of prejudice or confusion pursuant to section 90.403....

...expert witness testimony. We would observe that section 90.612(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), expressly requires a trial judge to exercise reasonable control over the presentation of the evidence so as to avoid the needless consumption of time, and section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2013), provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...State, 850 So. 2d 417, 429-30 (Fla. 2002); Patton v. State, - 13 - 784 So. 2d 380, 393 (Fla. 2000). This rule is consistent with the Florida Evidence Code, which allows for the exclusion of cumulative evidence. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat....

...This Court has explained the standard for trial courts to determine when relevant evidence is admissible: [A]ny fact relevant to prove a fact in issue is admissible into evidence unless its admissibility is precluded by some specific rule of exclusion.” Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needles...

...4th DCA 1982), and parental rights are subject to that principle. Therefore the parents' past conduct toward their other children is certainly relevant. Keeping the interest of the child in mind, neither can we say the relevance herein was outweighed by prejudice so as to disqualify the evidence under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...event Childers from “mentioning, arguing, or introducing into evidence” the Elliot acquittal. The verdict was, in the State’s view, irrelevant under Florida Evidence Rule 90.401, 8 or more prejudicial than probative under Florida Evidence Rule 90.403....

...rs’s convic *964 tion. 12 The court’s opinion did not, however, cite the Confrontation Clause or refer to the cases cited by Childers. The court, applying an abuse of discretion standard of review, analyzed his claims under Florida Evidence Rule 90.403, which provides that “relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fla. Stat. § 90.403 ....

...hat the Notice of Revocation and the March 13 ruling were relevant. Childers, 936 So.2d at 592 . The court agreed with the trial court’s outcome, however; the Notice of Revocation and the March 13 ruling were excludable under Florida Evidence Rule 90.403 because the unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value....

...judice or confusion. — Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fla. Stat. § 90.403 ....

...relevant because it tended to prove the material fact of the identity of the assailant). The evidence was relevant, and we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the risk of unfair prejudice (if any) did not substantially outweigh the probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...the THC." The judge concluded that "the testing procedures utilized by Dr. Baselt in the case at bar do not pass the Frye test" and that the expert opinions of Dr. Baselt and Dr. Goldberger "that rely upon those tests will not be allowed." Applying section 90.403, Florida Statutes, he further found that "the probative value of admitting evidence of the presence of THC and cTHC in the Defendant's blood at the time of Dr....

...f alcohol and marijuana in the subject's blood to other issues, including when the substances were ingested, the manner of ingestion, and whether it is probable that the subject was impaired at times related to the time the blood specimen was drawn. Section 90.403 provides: "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger *978 of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." In excl...

...On this record, we find that the trial court could reasonably find that the probative value of application of the Huestis models to the particular facts in this case is substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury, and that opinions based on the Huestis models should be excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...In the same way, the state may also prove impairment by a controlled substance, or impairment by a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance. Evidence of the presence of THC/cTHC in Sercey's blood is therefore admissible even if it cannot be quantitatively related to impairment, unless it is excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...for many years the "gold standard" for drug analysis, and considering that a challenge to the way in which a particular test was administered pertains to the weight and credibility of the evidence rather than to its admissibility, this ruling under section 90.403 must be reversed....

...d explained that this court was "correct when it rejected the trial court's conclusion that it was necessary for the toxicologist to estimate the degree of impairment caused by the existence of the drugs." Id. at 423. It explained the application of section 90.403, Florida Statutes, in the two cases: It may be that McClain and Weitz can be reconciled when the challenged evidence is viewed in light of its relationship to the other evidence....

...Florida’s relevance rules as applied to the sexual behavior of victims of sexual crimes. Carlyle v. State, 945 So. 3d 540, 546 (Fla. 5 2d DCA 2006); Kaplan v. State, 451 So. 2d 1386, 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also § 90.403, Fla....

...3d DCA 1989) (Barkdull, J., specially concurring). Moreover, the expert testimony should not be admitted if there is a "substantial danger of unfair prejudice outweighing its probative value." La Villarena, Inc. v. Acosta, 597 So.2d at 339; accord § 90.403, Fla....

...with the driver’s statement that fleeing the police was a “consensus decision” of the three occupants of the car. “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ....”§ 90.403, Fla....

...2011). - 13 -  Carr first argues that the school record should have been excluded because it violates her right to confrontation under Crawford9 and because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, since it is an official business record dated just days after Strong’s murder that links her to Fulgham....

...records implicate Crawford). Moreover, the fact that the record links Carr to Fulgham shortly after Strong’s murder does not “go beyond the inherent prejudice associated with . . . relevant evidence” necessary to require its exclusion under section 90.403....

...A trial court should exclude even relevant evidence if any probative value of the proffered evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of "unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury." Bartlett v. State, 993 So.2d 157, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting § 90.403, Fla....

...nto evidence. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling that admitting such evidence would present a danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the facts. In addition, the trial court properly applied the balancing test contained in section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...[I]n order for the similar facts to be relevant the points of similarity must have some special character or be so unusual as to point to the defendant. This court has clearly recognized an interplay between § 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1989), and § 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). In Carr v. State, 578 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court reversed a conviction because of the admission of similar fact evidence for the sole purpose of showing the defendant's propensity to possess cocaine. The court observed that under § 90.403, relevant evidence should be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Recently, this court has had occasion to further examine, and reaffirm, the relationship between § 90.403 and § 90.404(2)....

...d by the pertinent provisions in the Florida Evidence Code. Section 90.401 states, `Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.' Section 90.402 states, `All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.' Section 90.403 states, `Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.' The sponsor note to this section explains that `nothing that fails to meet the tests of §§ 90.401 and 90.403 may be admitted.' Accordingly, section 90.404(2)(a) recognizes the interplay of section 90.401 and 90.403 by specifying that `similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue.' Since similar fact evidence of other crimes is inherently prejudicial to a criminal defendant's right to...

...The case law leads to the inescapable conclusion that § 90.404(2) provides no meaningful guide for admissibility, unless the trial court is required in each instance to weigh the probative value of the proposed similar fact evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, as required by § 90.403....

...Clemons, 676 F.2d 122 (5th Cir.1982), and United States v. King, 703 F.2d 119 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 127, 78 L.Ed.2d 123 (1983), presume such a requirement, and analyze admissibility of the extrinsic evidence in light of Federal Rule 403, the substantial equivalent of § 90.403 in Florida. Indeed, the majority in the present case admits that the trial court must make a § 90.403 determination....

...merely prove identity (which it did not logically do), but to demonstrate Bennett's criminal propensity. The rule requiring more than a mere general similarity is quite easily explained when one considers, even for a moment, the relationship between § 90.403 and § 90.404(2), discussed above. The very fact that two criminal transactions, allegedly involving the same defendant, have "strikingly similar" characteristics, serves to tip the § 90.403 scales in favor of probative value. On the other hand, where the similarity test is ignored, the unfair prejudice side of the § 90.403 scale is not counterbalanced, and the proffered evidence does not reach the threshold of admissibility required by § 90.403....

...This issue requires resolution of two questions: whether the worthless check convictions are admissible under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1989), and if so, whether they should nonetheless be excluded because their probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Therefore, we conclude that all the convictions are admissible as impeachment evidence. Appellees' main argument, however, is that the trial court correctly excluded the convictions because their probative value was substantially outweighed by their unfair prejudicial effect. See § 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). A trial court's determination under section 90.403 is generally accorded great deference....

...Accordingly, this testimony was erroneously admitted by the trial court. See Bradley, 787 So.2d at 742 (holding evidence that provides context to the crime(s) charged is admissible “to the extent, of course, that its relevance is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect”); see also § 90.403, Fla....

...guns from the car because at that time, she had received threatening phone calls and was “a little bit” afraid of Blake or his family. Blake has not demonstrated that trial counsel erred. Blake asserts that the testimony could have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), which provided that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” This argument is without merit....

...ority granted by law...." [8] *606 In this case, Byrd did not object to the hearsay nature of the no cause determination letters; she argued that the probative value of the letters was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes. Section 90.403 provides, in pertinent part, that: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...as substantive evidence. Although a prior conviction would tend to prove that a defendant had actual notice of the duty to register, the trial court should have analyzed the question of its admissibility by applying the balancing test required under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2004). Professor Ehrhardt has described a trial court's responsibility in applying section 90.403: The court must weigh the logical strength of the proffered evidence to prove a material fact or issue against the other facts in the record and balance it against the strength of the reason for exclusion....

...ned when he was released from prison acknowledging the address change requirement). We agree with Horton that the prejudice outweighed the probative value of the prior conviction, and because the trial court failed to conduct a proper analysis under section 90.403, it abused its discretion in allowing the prior conviction into evidence. See Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 887 (Fla.1998) (discussing section 90.403 balancing)....

...LaSpada, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee Deborah Aylesworth. *182 FRANK, Judge. The state has appealed from three orders of the trial court stemming from the prosecution of Deborah and Harry Aylesworth. We affirm the first order. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), when it granted the Aylesworths' joint motion in limine and excluded settlement agreements arising from related civil litigation....

...Prior to the filing of criminal charges, the Aylesworths' activities resulted in multiple civil actions, many of which were ultimately resolved in settlement agreements. The stipulated facts and the admissions contained in the agreements are relevant to the criminal charges. The trial court, however, consistent with section 90.403 excluded the agreements because of potential prejudice or confusion, and barred the admission of compromise and offers to compromise relying for that determination upon section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1993). Under section 90.403, relevant evidence may be foreclosed where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence....

...A trial court's action taken under this rule will not, however, be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. McClain, 525 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1988); Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1981). We find no abuse in the trial court's application of section 90.403 in this instance and affirm its order....

...the slip-and-fall trial was erroneous. Where, as here, it was undisputed that the plaintiff was sober at the time of the incident, the probative value of such evidence, if any, was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudicial effect. § 90.403, Fla....

...ent was pertinent because it was an explanation for Matthews' actions and was "relevant to Defendant's state of mind and why he is acting the way he is acting." The court ruled that the statement was admissible. On appeal, Matthews argues that under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, [2] only his statement that he was afraid of going to jail was admissible; the statement that he was on probation for a domestic violence charge was too prejudicial to be admitted. We agree. As we explained in Farrell v. State, 682 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996): Before admitting this type of evidence, a trial court must weigh its probative value against the danger the evidence may confuse or mislead the jury. § 90.403, Fla....

...DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986), we reverse and remand for a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED. THOMPSON, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. NOTES [1] We find no reversible error in the remaining issues raised by Defendant and thus do not address them in this opinion. [2] Section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, confusion or waste of time.

...er sympathy was not preserved by defense counsel’s bare relevance objection below. Testimony which evokes sympathy for a victim may be inadmissible on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2012); see also State v. Gerry, 855 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“The unfair prejudice that section 90.403 attempts to eliminate relates to evidence that inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury’s emotions.” (citations and quotation marks omitted))....

...However, an objection on relevance grounds only will not preserve an argument of unfair prejudice on appeal. See Andrews v. State, 82 So.3d 979 , 982 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Appellant failed to object at trial on undue prejudice grounds pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes .......

...4th DCA 2010) (finding that because defense counsel “specifically argued that the probative value of [the evidence at issue] was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” the issue was “thus preserved] ... for appeal and obligated] the trial court to apply the section 90.403 balancing test” (citation omitted))....

...State, 991 So.2d 364, 380-81 (Fla.2008) (Pariente, J., specially concurring) (footnote omitted). Counsel is well-advised to seek guidance from the trial court as to the method preferred by the presiding judge when making an “inflammatory” or “unfair prejudice” objection pursuant to section 90.403....

...t trial. We reverse on the basis that the evidence was irrelevant to his injuries and could have been prejudicial. Even if it were relevant it would be inadmissible since its value would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...tements. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these statements. Finally, Faust objects to the admission of the recordings of the jail phone calls. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was unduly prejudicial and in violation of section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...Generally, evidence of prior bad acts or crimes is relevant to prove a material fact at issue if the evidence is not being admitted solely to prove bad character or propensity. See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, for such evidence to be admissible, its prejudicial effect must not outweigh its probative value. § 90.403, Fla....

...4th DCA 2008) (quoting Jones v. State, 678 So.2d 890, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). In Love , the court noted the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses, and that “the Sixth Amendment narrows a trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence of a witness’ bias under section 90.403.” Id....

...However, when settlement evidence goes to a witness's "motivation[ ], interest, and position" the probative value of such proof of bias outweighs the danger of prejudice. See Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 408.1, Fla. Stat. (2003 ed.) (citing Dosdourian, 624 So.2d at 241; § 90.403, Fla....

...efendant acted with *1230 premeditated design to cause victim's death). Because the defendant's use of the term "cracker" was not relevant, that is, it had no probative value, it is unnecessary to engage in a probative versus prejudice analysis. See § 90.403, Fla....

...In circumstances such as this, we strongly suggest that prosecutors err on the side of caution by omitting these statements and that trial courts consider the danger that the prejudicial effect of such evidence will substantially outweigh any probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...rightened, she thought she would get in trouble, and she thought that defendant may harm her mother because “he hit her before.” Nor was this evidence inadmissible because any probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...and lascivious counts charged under section 800.04(5)(c)2. See § 90.404(2)(b)2. 10 the evidence of other acts of child molestation must be relevant and that the evidence “remains subject to weighing under section 90.403.”5 Id....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403. The similarity of the collateral act of molestation and charged offense is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403....

...2d at 1259. The McLean Court set forth several requirements that must be satisfied prior to the admission of other acts of child molestation under section 90.404(2)(b). In addition to finding that the evidence of other acts of child molestation is relevant, 5 Section 90.403 provides, in part: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”...

...tographs were taken long after the accident and could not accurately portray the pole and surrounding area. Plaintiff argues that the admission of the photographs of the pole was not an abuse of discretion and any error was harmless. Florida Statute § 90.403 provides in pertinent part: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confession of issues, misleading the jury or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Under § 90.403 the determination whether to admit the photographs of the fuse pole involves a balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice....

...Whether such evidence is admissible will depend on a fact-specific analysis in each case. The trial court's ruling in the present case was consistent with Robertson. The defense next contends that even if the evidence was admissible under the Williams Rule, its unfair prejudice outweighed its probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...udice," because the evidence was necessary to the prosecution's case, did not suggest an improper basis for the jury to resolve the matter, was supportive of inferences raised by the victim's testimony, and no limiting instruction was requested. See § 90.403, Fla....

...there was sufficient uniqueness, to *1218 render the evidence relevant. In any event, even if it were deemed marginally probative, the danger of unfair prejudice certainly outweighed any probative value that could be derived from such evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Childers’s brief to the District Court of Appeal argued that the trial court abused its discretion and denied him his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by barring him from cross-examining Junior as proposed in his motion. 4 Id. 2 Under Fla. Evid. R. 90.403 “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fla. Stat. § 90.403. 3 Under Fla....

...: 11/14/2013 Page: 5 of 18 The District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, 5 ruled per curiam that the trial court’s ruling did not constitute an abuse of discretion and affirmed Childers’s convictions under Florida Evidence Rule 90.403....

...impeached.” Fla. Stat. § 90.608. 6  Case: 08-15590 Date Filed: 11/14/2013 Page: 7 of 18 nonetheless observed that this right of confrontation is subject to limitation under Rule 90.403....

...Richter, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 770, 785 (2011). Here, the presumption is rebutted because Florida Rule of Evidence 403, the state standard discussed by the DCA, is “less protective” than the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. See Fla. Stat. § 90.403....

...State, 878 So.2d 1246, 1255 (Fla.2004)). For photographic evidence to be relevant, it must logically tend to prove or disprove a material fact. §§ 90.401-90.402, Fla. Stat. (2008). Even if the evidence is relevant, it may be inadmissible under the section 90.403 balancing test, if the "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Further, the trial court may decline to...

...There is no exception for medical malpractice cases. Id. As the rule suggests, cumulativeness alone is not sufficient grounds to exclude evidence: the probative value of the evidence must be " substantially outweighed" by the danger of " needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...The plaintiff appealed, and Camelot cross-appealed. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by denying its motion in limine and by allowing Camelot to elicit evidence that the decedent's only son had a past drug and alcohol problem. We agree. Even if evidence is relevant, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), "requires the trial court to balance the danger of unfair prejudice against the probative value of the evidence sought to be introduced....

...Jones has failed to demonstrate any error, let alone fundamental error. We also reject Jones’s unpre-served claim that the probative value of the evidence of the collateral murders was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...abuse of discretion standard. Williams v. State, 967 So. 2d 735, 747-48 (Fla. 2007). Evidence that is relevant to the defendant’s theory of defense and questions which probe a witness’s credibility are subject to the balancing test set forth in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2014), which provides that relevant evidence is nonetheless inadmissible if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” See also Jackson v....

...State, 944 So.2d 270, 286 (Fla.2006) ("Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.") (quoting § 90.403, Fla....

admissibility of the special conditions under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2010). In addition, we find

...Scott Murphy of Allen & Murphy, P.A., Maitland, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant seeks review of evidentiary rulings made during trial and also of a cost judgment entered in favor of appellee after trial. As to the evidentiary rulings, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

was inadmissible under a Rule 403 analysis. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (evidence is inadmissible where its

...However, Armstrong used the future tense—I will steal. He never admitted to a specific robbery. Assuming this statement constituted an admission against interest or was somehow relevant, its admission at trial created a danger of unfair prejudice, which substantially outweighed any probative value. § 90.403, Fla....

...[2] Here the prosecutor argued Armstrong's statement was essential to the state's case to show the reason why Armstrong was identified as a suspect. However, Henderson could have simply testified that, as the result of an interview or investigation, he began to suspect Armstrong of this robbery. [3] 90.403....

...4th DCA 1982), and parental rights are subject to that principle. Therefore the parents’ past conduct toward their other children is certainly relevant. Keeping the interest of the child in mind, neither can we say the relevance herein was outweighed by prejudice so as to disqualify the evidence under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...e other evidence in the case does so, then you should find the defendant guilty. SOTO'S CREDIBILITY AND RULE 3.390(a) The trial court properly applied Rule 3.390(a) as a limit to the attack on Soto's credibility. That rule can be viewed similarly to section 90.403, balancing the relevance of a defendant's potential sentence against the possibility that a jury's decision could be swayed if it was advised of the potential sentence....

...act that Soto possibly faced a life sentence or of the potentially applicable mandatory minimums. Even in the "he said-he said" circumstances of Henry , relied upon by the majority, the Fourth District cautioned that the trial court must engage in a section 90.403 analysis regarding whether certain details should not be disclosed regarding the favorable terms a deal-motivated witness receives....

...Goldberger testified that he could not determine whether the ingestion of the drug occurred two, five, or eight hours before the crash. The State submitted into evidence Appellant’s certified driving record, to which Appellant objected, asserting the record was prejudicial under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2016). “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...If there is not a genuine dispute over a material fact that the Williams rule evidence is offered to prove, “then the probative value of such evidence necessarily has significantly less importance than its prejudicial effect, and the evidence should be excluded under section 90.403.” Id....

...§ 90.401 Fla. Stat. (2007). However, relevant evidence may be excluded where the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla....

...The initial provider's report contains evidence that bears upon the controlling and disputed issue of Claimant's employability and, by extension, his eligibility for PTD benefits. Additionally, introducing the report would not have implicated any of the grounds for exclusion identified in section 90.403....

...Mickell argues that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting evidence of an uncharged collateral crime—Mickell giving a false name to the trooper—because the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90,403, Fla. Stat. (2013). In weighing the probative

...o the 9 millimeter bullets. While we believe that the Uzi and its ammunition were relevant, that does not end our analysis. Relevant evidence is inadmissible “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403, Fla....

...d the truth seeking function of a trial and may be employed when redirect examination serves to reveal the whole story of a transaction only partly explained in cross examination); see also Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688 (Fla.1996) (holding that section 90.403, Florida Statutes, did not preclude testimony that a critical state witness knew that the defendant had previously murdered a child, when the credibility of the witness was at issue due to his failure initially to fully cooperate with...

...HAWKES, C.J., and ALLEN, J., concur; CLARK, J., dissents with opinion. CLARK, J., dissent. I disagree with the majority and would reverse the conviction. Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed *896 by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla....

...ss if it is so prejudicial that it denies the defendant a fair trial." The supreme court emphasized the significance of a trial court weighing the probative value of evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice and explained: [T]he application of section 90.403 should always render evidence inadmissible when it has such a prejudicial effect....

...The opinion strongly implies that a trial court should find that the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading of the jury and of needless presentation, substantially outweigh the probative value of the hypnotically aided testimony resulting in its exclusion from evidence under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1981), unless the court's suggestions are followed....

...[3] In Snead, judges from the First District Court of Appeal sat for the Fifth District Court of Appeal. [4] This does not mean, of course, that a trial court might not in a given case treat evidence resulting from hypnosis just as any other evidence and find it inadmissible for the reasons given in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1981).

...the authority to assess, if admissible, whether the “probative value of such evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...he trial court, and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). This discretion may be exercised, generally, to balance the probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice, see § 90.403, or, more specifically here, to ensure the Rules of Professional Conduct are not “subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons.” R....

...Accordingly, the potential for unfair prejudice . . . did not “substantially outweigh” the statement’s probative value. We conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion under the rules of evidence, specifically sections 90.403 and 90.803(2), in allowing the State to introduce the statement over defense objection. Id....

...- 21 - regarding the prejudicial nature of Vitale’s testimony is superior to this Court’s.” However, Johnson overlooks that the prejudicial impact this Court was referring to was prejudice for purposes of application of the section 90.403 evidentiary balancing test....

...“The prerequisite to the admissibility of evidence is relevancy. All evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact is admissible, unless precluded by law.” Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277, 291 (Fla. 2009). “Despite the fact that all relevant evidence is admissible, section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of relevant evidence if ‘its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.’” Taylor, 855 So. 2d at 21-22 (quoting § 90.403, Fla....

...Q: You are aware of the fact that she had a child at a young age. {defense counsel} Judge, Objection. The Court: Sustained. Sidebar. The defense again moved for mistrial which was, again, denied. Section 90.402, Florida Statutes, provides that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. Moreover, section 90.403, Florida Statutes, provides that relevant evidence may nevertheless be inadmissible "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." § 90.403, Fla....

...Consequently, this evidence would fail to meet the relevancy requirements of admissible evidence. Even if the evidence could remotely be considered "relevant," introduction of this type of evidence into the case would be barred by the balancing requirements of section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...r cocaine sales, defendant must have agreed to sell cocaine." Id. at 1371. The essence of the holding in Wheeler was that the "probative value" of the "bad neighborhood" testimony was "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." See § 90.403, Fla....

...A "twenty" means something different to a Wal-Mart cashier processing a sale than it does in an open air crack market. Here, the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the high probative value of the undercover officer's testimony translating drug argot. See § 90.403, Fla....

...This discretion is limited by the evidence rules. Id. Relevant evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove a material fact. § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2004). "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." § 90.403, Fla....

...positions, may have some attenuated relevant value to show appellant's motive; nevertheless, whatever relevancy these photographs have is offset by balancing the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from the photographs' admission into evidence. See § 90.403, Fla....

...wrong reason. [1] *1196 James next argues that the trial court erred in admitting, over defense objection, testimony that he had sexually abused his stepdaughter for many years. [2] James contends that this testimony should have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2004), because its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value....

...Although Ford is permitted to inquire into the nature of the charges pending, on remand, the trial court should engage in a *801 balancing to determine whether the risk of unfair prejudice to the State substantially outweighs the probative value of allowing Ford a more detailed inquiry. See § 90.403, Fla....

...1), Fla. Stat.; see also Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959). Because of the possible danger of unfair prejudice, the “trial court’s gatekeeping function is critical. In every case, the trial court must conduct the weighing required by section 90.403.” McLean v....

..., the trial court must find that the prior acts were proved by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 1262; Harrelson v. State, 146 So. 3d 171, 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Here, while the trial court properly performed the balancing required by § 90.403 and McLean, it failed to make the required finding that the collateral acts were proved by clear and convincing evidence....

...3d at 174 (reversing the judgment and sentence where the trial court failed to make the requisite finding that the collateral acts were proved, and declining to make such finding in the first instance). As in Harrelson, however, “we do not believe this conclusion mandates a new trial because the trial court did perform the section 90.403 ‘gatekeeping’ analysis required under McLean.” Id. Accordingly, we reverse Mr....

...4th DCA 2011) (citations omitted). The Florida Evidence Code provides that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...dmission. 561 So.2d at 539. Otherwise relevant evidence "is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla....

...nt and admissible evidence heard and considered by the jury. Here, the trial court abused its discretion by not permitting the jury to consider relevant evidence, based on an incorrect legal determination. Contrary to the trial court's finding under section 90.403, there was no adequate showing that unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value. Because the trial court incorrectly determined the relevance of the evidence, it could not effectively weigh any prejudice the evidence could create vis a vis its probative value; thus, the section 90.403 analysis was compromised....

...[12] Under the "tipsy coachman" rule, when the "trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, [that decision] will be upheld [on appeal] if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record." Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644-45 (Fla.1999). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008), affords substantial discretion to trial courts to exclude otherwise relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." See Harris v....

...even though "[a]s a general rule, a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed, absent an abuse of discretion." McCray v. State, 919 So.2d 647, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citations omitted). The weighing contemplated by section 90.403 is for the trial court, in the first instance, and here the trial court ruled the subsequent ban altogether irrelevant, so that no weighing took place below....

...ze a 1974 transaction and was prepared in anticipation of trial not as part of business activity). Even if the medical record satisfied the business record exception, the opinion still may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial or confusing under section 90.403, Florida Statutes....

...ive proof if the opinions therein relate to the diagnosis of a complex medical condition difficult to determine or substantiate and the expert is unavailable for cross-examination). See also CHARLES W. EHRHARDT, FLORIDA EVIDENCE § 803.6 (2001 ed.). Section 90.403 allows the trial court to exercise its discretion to exclude otherwise relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless prese...

confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. Actual confusion of the issues and

...nation by Dr. Montes in support of the state's prosecutorial efforts. [6] Consonant with this charge, evidence ruled to be relevant may be excluded at trial if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. See § 90.403, Fla....

R.B’s hearsay statements inadmissible under section 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1991), on the basis that their

subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes, and cannot become the feature

...Evidence Seized from Room 312 Wade next argues that trial counsel should have objected to the introduction into evidence of items seized from room 312 of the hotel on the basis that the danger of unfair prejudice from that evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...In some of the photographs, a silver car, consistent with the Mazda rented by Cole, is visible in the background. Wade argues that these photographs could have been excluded on the basis that the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed their probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Michael Jackson very well may be the mastermind of this group. . . . He was the one accessing it but what we know, what we know is [Wade] was with them the whole time.” Accordingly, Wade has not shown that upon a motion by trial counsel, the photographs would have been excluded under section 90.403. In addition, trial counsel cannot be deemed deficient because trial counsel made a reasonable, strategic decision not to object to the photographs....

...“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2016). “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...would be precluded from any mention of the second person, leaving the jury to suppose there was only one perpetrator. 7 admitted. See § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (“Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.”); § 90.403, Fla....

...nation.” Schwarz v. State, 695 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that any probative value of bolstered testimony is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury” (quoting § 90.403, Fla....

...Even assuming the RVA had been used merely to show notice, the above discussion reveals how this may not have been clear to the jury. “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the ... confusion of issues.” § 90.403, Fla....

...(allowing only relevant evidence to be admitted). Although notice that the Eagles’ *340 training and procedures were inadequate to prevent all accidents in the past may-have been relevant, the prejudicial effect of this particular evidence substantially outweighs its probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...The trial court erred by allowing evidence of the RVA to be admitted when the RVA neither formed the basis of a cause of action nor could properly be used as evidence of negligence. We hold that evidence of the Eagles being on notice of the RVA was inappropriate under section 90.403 due to the high probability of confusing the issues and low measure (if any) of relevancy....

...State, 757 So.2d 1246, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). Nonetheless, a trial court should exclude even relevant evidence if the probative value of the proffered evidence "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury[.]" § 90.403, Fla....

...(2008). See also Joyner v. State, 4 So.3d 76, 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Bartlett, 993 So.2d at 165). Here, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Ahlf's testimony, and properly applied the balancing test contained in section 90.403....

...her they share any similarity." McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248, 1259 (Fla.2006). Even under this relaxed standard of admissibility, however, evidence of other acts of child molestation are subject to relevancy requirements and the balancing test of section 90.403....

...As McLean explains, the less similar a collateral offense to the charged offense, the less relevant and the more likely it is that its probative value will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Id. (quoting section 90.403, Fla....

...haracter as the kind of person who engages in this type of explicit text messaging. § 794.022(3), Fla. Stat. (2010) (stating that “reputation evidence relating to a victim’s prior sexual conduct . . . shall not be admitted into evidence”); § 90.403, Fla....

...of Nye’s survivors. It proffered testimony from the decedent’s wife that she was additionally traumatized to know that a law enforcement officer would have left her husband without trying to help or respond. The court conducted an analysis under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2012), and determined that the probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, because the wife’s main trauma was the occurrence and manner of the accident itself. On the issue...

...She claimed that because this information increased the wife’s pain and suffering resulting from the accident, it should have been admitted. The court listened to the proffer of the wife’s testimony on this issue and made a probative versus prejudicial analysis under section 90.403, Florida 5 Statutes (2012)....

...mit or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. State, 40 So. 3d 883, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So. 2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2012), provides: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ....

...As a predicate for the admission of this evidence, it must be established that the accused was aware of the incident. State v. Smith, 573 So.2d 306, 318 (Fla.1990). [2] The majority concludes that evidence of the shotgun incident was properly excluded under section 90.403 because of its remoteness in time and circumstance....

...ern of conduct that persisted throughout the parties' six-year marriage. In my view, the probativeness of this evidence was not "substantially outweighed," by the danger of unfair prejudice. Although the trial court's discretion is broad in applying section 90.403, here, in my view, the trial judge abused his discretion in excluding the evidence....

...5th DCA 1998) (noting evidence of the victim's prior acts of violence are generally admissible in support of the self-defense theory when known to defendant at the time of the alleged crime to show the defendant's state of mind and the reasonableness of defendant's apprehension and actions). [4] § 90.403, Fla....

...Thus, the settlement does not constitute an admission that they were the breaching party. The Brokers have not demonstrated that the settlement had any probative value that was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion. § 90.403, Fla....

...Had the charges been severed and the DUI case tried separately, the jury would have been prohibited from hearing that cocaine was found in appellant's possession, because the danger of unfair prejudice would have substantially outweighed the probative value of this evidence. See Fla. Stat. § 90.403 (relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice)....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id. at 1259 (quoting § 90.403, Fla....

...3d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The supreme court set out factors that a trial court should consider in deciding whether the probative value of acts admissible under section 90.404(2) is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant under section 90.403: In assessing whether the probative value of evidence of previous molestations is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the trial court should evaluate: (1) the similarity of the prior...

...5th DCA 2011). On this record, the collateral act evidence did not become a feature of the trial or overwhelm the evidence of the charged crime. The relevance of the testimony to establish Stubbs’ exploitation of his religious position was not outweighed by unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...(2013) (defining relevant evidence as “evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact"). Furthermore, even if this evidence were remotely relevant, the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...(2013) ("Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."). "The unfair prejudice that section 90.403 attempts to eliminate relates to evidence that 'inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury’s emotions.'" State v....

...Zordan, 564 So.2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Furthermore, Dr. Stein's presentation of the battered spouse syndrome evidence chronicled, in much detail, numerous prior bad acts committed by Williams, the prejudicial nature of which outweighed any possible probative value. See § 90.403, Fla....

...90.402 & 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2014). Relevant evidence is inadmissible, however, when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...Velcof-ski now appeals his conviction arguing that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion to redact significant portions of his driving record because the probative value of the complete driving record was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...someness of the photograph. The State argues that “the probative value of the evidence offered by the State was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect, especially where the evidence was necessary to how the victim was left after the accident.” Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2013), provides that “[rjelevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice .......

...The trial court essentially acknowledged as much while overruling Ramroop’s objection to its admission. The precise issue for the trial judge, however, was not simply whether the photograph was prejudicial, but rather, whether its 'probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...luded as unreliable. However, Mr. Wheeler would be permitted to offer opinion testimony not based on the results of the computer simulation. We first address the trial court’s conclusions regarding the admissibility of the video simulation itself. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “[rjelevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” And “[a] trial court’s ruling on a section 90.403 issue will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Ramirez v....

...onable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.”) (quoting Peede v. State, 955 So.2d 480, 489 (Fla.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because we conclude that the trial court properly excluded the video simulation pursuant to section 90.403, we need not address the court’s ruling that the expert’s methods used in creating the video simulation are not generally accepted in the engineering community. See Ramirez, 810 So.2d at 842 (“All evidence ... is subject to the requirements of section! ] ... 90.403.”)....

likelihood of misidentification. c. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes The defendant’s last

...Thirdly, enough evidence of the alleged statements by the child to said witnesses was admitted along the way so as to demonstrate the cumulative nature ,-of the hearsay. We realize that the general rule regarding cumulative testimony does not pertain here. But we would refer to section 90.403 for some support in holding that, considering the total untrustworthiness of the child’s testimony in the mind of the trial judge because of the coaching by the mother, such relevant evidence becomes inadmissible “needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” See Pardo v....

...e of the accident. Case law interpreting “reasonableness” also discusses relevancy and materiality as impacting on “reasonableness.” F.S. Sec. 90.401 defines relevant evidence.as “evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” F.S. 90.403 states that “relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”....

...3d at 183. 2. Our analysis starts at the beginning. All relevant evidence is admissible unless such evidence is excluded by law, see § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2022), such as when the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, see § 90.403, Fla....

...materiality. To be admissible, evidence first must be relevant to a particular material issue to be proved. This basic framework is of special importance when the evidence to be admitted poses an unusual danger of unfair prejudice to an accused. See § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...Over objection, the trial court ruled that the defense had “opened the door” to allow the State to make such an inquiry. On redirect examination, the investigator testified that appellant had in the past had his driving privileges suspended. Such testimony was inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), because the danger of prejudice outweighed any probative value that could have been attributed to the fact of prior license suspensions....

...under the Williams rule, courts must also determine whether "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence" as required by section 90.403. McLean, 934 So. 2d at 1256 (quoting § 90.403)....

...charged and collateral offenses occurred in the familial context or whether they share any similarity." McLean, 934 So. 2d at 1259. Instead, the threshold question for admissibility under this statute is relevancy. Id. But the evidence must still meet the requirement of section 90.403 that its probative value must not be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Id. (quoting § 90.403). Thus, there is no longer a substantial similarity requirement in nonfamilial child molestation cases or a relaxed standard of admissibility in familial cases of child molestation....

...Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be 'substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.' " Id. (quoting § 90.403). The supreme court has set forth the steps a trial court must take when determining whether to admit collateral crime evidence under section 90.404(b)(2). See McLean, 934 So. 2d at 1262. Initially, the court must find that the State proved the -5- existence of the collateral acts by clear and convincing evidence. Then the court should apply the section 90.403 balancing test to determine whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice by considering (1) the similarity of the prior acts to the act charged regarding the lo...

...Heuring, Rawls, and Saffor." McLean, 934 So. 2d at 1259. The circuit court should have followed the procedure the McLean court subsequently set forth for applying section 90.404(2)(b). This procedure required the court to apply the section 90.403 balancing test to determine whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....

...ative value of this evidence will be “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403. The similarity of the collateral act of molestation and charged offense is a critical consideration for the trial court in conducting an appropriate weighing under section 90.403. The trial courts are gatekeepers in ensuring that evidence of prior acts of child molestation is not so prejudicial that the defendant is convicted based on the prior sexual misconduct. 934 So....

...To the extent that the older text messages were not required to establish that theory or were cumulative, the evidence was either irrelevant or its probative value was outweighed by the unfair prejudice to Fuller, as it merely established his historical use of drugs. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat....

...was sleeping on a pull-out couch. Defense counsel argued that under McLean v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2006), the trial court was required to first determine whether the evidence of a collateral crime was clear and convincing, and if so, then to determine, under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, if the danger of unfair prejudice to Harrelson would substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence. Interestingly, counsel suggested it would be more efficient—and possibly would avoid “having a mini trial”—if the trial court were to assume, initially, the evidence was clear and convincing, and proceed with the 90.403 analysis....

...2d at 1263 (approving use of collateral crime evidence admitted under section 90.404(2)(b) to corroborate alleged victim’s testimony where identity is not an issue). That said, we do not believe this conclusion mandates a new trial because the trial court did perform the section 90.403 “gatekeeping” analysis required under McLean....

...1 The victim also had active ingredients of marijuana and opioid analgesics in her body at the time of the accident. The State argued that this evidence was barred under section 90.404, Florida Statutes (2018), as an impermissible use of character evidence, and under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2018), as more prejudicial than probative....

...the reverse Williams- rule evidence. Rivera, 561 So. 2d at 539–40. Thus, even in a death penalty case, a trial court’s ruling excluding potentially exculpatory evidence will be upheld if the evidence is not sufficiently relevant. And under section 90.403, trial courts must exclude even relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”...

...to show that the victim was 100% at fault for the collision. 5 The excluded evidence did not show that the deceased was solely responsible for the fatal accident. In addition, the potential danger of this evidence to mislead the jury renders it inadmissible under section 90.403. See Marchina v. State, 702 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that the evidence should have been excluded under section 90.403, as its very limited probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and was relevant only to prove bad character of defendant in violation of section 90.404(2)(a)). While the trial court did not rely on section 90.403, and this rationale, we may consider this logic and legal authority 5 For a general comparison to a civil case, in Walt Disney World Co....

...in affirming the judgment. See Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585, 593–96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (en banc) (affirming judgment under “tipsy coachman” rule, because, although trial court erred in excluding evidence as irrelevant, evidence was properly excluded under section 90.403)....

discretion in admitting it. Id. at 344 (citing § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2007)). That is not what happened

...Stat. [(2017)]. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence “tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” § 90.401, Fla. Stat. [(2017)]. While all admissible evidence must be relevant, not all relevant evidence is admissible; section 90.403 mandates that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403, Fla....

...cause affidavit, after having reviewed police reports, conversations between the defendant an undercover officer posing as a patient, and patient charts seized during a search of the defendant’s office. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the expert’s testimony pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2017), which states, in pertinent part: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless...

...guns from the car because at that time, she had received threatening phone calls and was “a little bit” afraid of Blake or his family. Blake has not demonstrated that trial counsel erred. Blake asserts that the testimony could have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), which provided that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” This argument is without merit....

...State, 455 So.2d 330 (Fla.1984) and Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908 (Fla.1983). In regard to the autopsy photographs admitted in the instant case, we have reviewed them pursuant to Leach v. State, 132 So.2d 329 (Fla.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 1005 , 82 S.Ct. 636 , 7 L.Ed.2d 543 (1962), and section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1983), and have determined that their admission into evidence, if error, was harmless in the instant case....

...90.401-.402, Fla. Stat. (2012); Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277, 291 (Fla. 2009) ("The prerequisite to the admissibility of evidence is relevancy. All evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact is admissible, unless precluded by law."). Section 90.403, which provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence," operates as just such a preclusion. See Wright, 19 So. 3d at 291 (quoting § 90.403)....

in the immediate aftermath of the murder. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. We find no error, therefore the

...Finally, on retrial, the trial court should consider redacting the offensive and irrelevant language from the taped conversation between appellant and his codefendant so that he will not be unnecessarily prejudiced by its admission. See, Fla.Stat. § 90.403 (1991)....

...n furlough on the day of the incident and indicated that his destination was Live Oak, where the incident occurred. The court denied the motion, and the records were introduced into evidence, along with the testimony of the custodian of the records. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), provides: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....” In this case, any probative value of appellant’s furlough records wa...

...e, that the trial court properly refused to admit into evidence references to the administrative disciplinary proceeding. This is because we find the probative value of such proceedings was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...illegal sentence. As to the former issue, we affirm. The evidence relating to the pregnancy had probative value and appellant has failed to show that any danger of prejudice substantially outweighed the evidentiary value of the facts submitted. See Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1979), and Buchman v....

...State, 803 So.2d 629, 642 (Fla.2001)). Despite this, autopsy photographs like all other evidence, are inadmissible when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ... or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...STANDARDS OF REVIEW The trial court has broad discretion in determining not only the relevance of evidence, but also whether its “probative value is substantially 10 outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” thereby rendering such evidence inadmissible. § 90.403, Fla....

...idence became an impermissible feature of the trial, causing the “probative value [to be] substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...3d 518, 528 (Fla. 2009)). However, “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

April 21, 2019 recording was inadmissible under section 90.403 and in granting Appellee’s motion to suppress

was outweighed by their prejudicial effect. See, § 90.403, Fla. Stat. Following the decision of the Florida

...If there is no bona fide dispute over a material fact that the similar fact evidence is offered to prove, then the probative value of such evidence necessarily has significantly less importance than its prejudicial effect, and the evidence should be excluded under section 90.403.” [e.s.] Thomas v....

...ined from the particular facts and circumstances involved in each case, i.e., has the defendant put such fact in issue. This construction and application of section 90.404(2)(a) brings it into complete harmony with the purpose of sections 90.401 and 90.403.” 599 So.2d at 163 ....

...But even “[r]elevant evidence is - 55 - inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.403, Fla....

...l fact.” All relevant evidence is admissible, “except as provided by law”, unless probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or “needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id.; § 90.403, Fla....

...decision; the chain of inference necessary to establish a material fact; and the effectiveness of a limiting instruction. State v. McClain, 525 So. 2d 420, 422 (Fla. 1988) (quoting C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 403.1 (1984 Edition) discussing the application of section 90.403, Florida Statutes). The trial court was correct that the evidence was remote and not related to the criminal charge....

...possessed substantial probative value which outweighed any unfair prejudice. We again affirm the trial court's ruling. Relevant testimony is inadmissible only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla....

...Here, the videos of the crime itself were plainly relevant—including to establish the disputed element of premeditation—and their probative value was not “substantially outweighed by the danger of - 24 - unfair prejudice.” § 90.403, Fla....

substantially by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1989). Although the trial judge gave

...o likely to be misused by the jury as evidence of the fact asserted that it should be excluded on the grounds that the probative value of the statement admitted for a nonhear-say purpose is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, Section 90.403....

...The Motion in Limine and the Evidence at Trial Carpenter moved before trial to exclude all evidence relating to the October 2009 golf cart incident on the grounds that its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2015). Carpenter argued that irrelevant, but highly prejudicial facts—such as the intoxication, profanity, and struggle with law enforcement personnel—were too interwoven with any facts relating to the golf ca...

...W. Ehrhardt, [Florida Evidence § 403.1 (2007)] at 183. The question under the statute is not prejudice but instead, unfair prejudice: whether the “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403, Fla....

PER CURIAM. REVERSED. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a tape made by police at the stabbing victim’s deathbed which recorded the anguished sounds of the victim in his last moments of life. See § 90.403, Fla.Stat....

...from defendant's pretrial statements that his anticipated defense was accidental death). We also reject Mr. Williams' argument that the probative value of the Williams rule evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403 ("Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ....

...e danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible.” § 90.403, Fla. Stat. 3 2d 482, 492 (Fla....

...es of evidence. Ballard v. State, 66 So. 3d 912, 917 (Fla. 2011). Section 90.402, Florida Statutes (2018), provides: “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” - 30 - However, section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2018), states: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumul...

...1994) (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 404.17 (1993 ed.)). The admissibility of both categories—similar fact evidence and dissimilar fact evidence—is determined by its relevancy and, of course, subject to exclusion under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2010)....

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2016). The State presented evidence

...State, 979 So.2d 182, 194 (Fla.2008) (“Admission of photographs is a matter for the discretion of the trial court, and this [c]ourt has held it will not disturb such rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.”). We likewise cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting Mr. Smith’s section 90.403, Florida Statutes, argument that the videos’ probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that they might unfairly mislead the jury due to their time-lapse nature....

...Accord: ingly, the instant agreements do not meet the definition of a collateral source. We agree that the evidence might lead to the same prejudice that collateral source evidence can cause. But the way to remedy that problem is by weighing the potential prejudice against the evidence’s probative value as called for in section 90.403, not by per se excluding the evidence as violative of the collateral source rule. Mr. Smith, however, did not make a section 90.403 challenge to this evidence below or on appeal, and thus we cannot consider such prejudice in our disposition of this appeal....