Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 90.404 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 90.404 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 90.404

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VII
EVIDENCE
Chapter 90
EVIDENCE CODE
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 90.404
90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
(b) Character of victim.
1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.
(c) Character of witness.Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610.
(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.
(a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, 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.
(b)1. In a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving child molestation, evidence of the 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.
2. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “child molestation” means conduct proscribed by s. 787.025(2)(c), s. 787.06(3)(g), former s. 787.06(3)(h), s. 794.011, excluding s. 794.011(10), s. 794.05, former s. 796.03, former s. 796.035, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), s. 847.0145, or s. 985.701(1) when committed against a person 16 years of age or younger.
(c)1. In a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts involving a sexual offense is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.
2. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “sexual offense” means conduct proscribed by s. 787.025(2)(c), s. 787.06(3)(b), (d), (f), or (g), former s. 787.06(3)(h), s. 794.011, excluding s. 794.011(10), s. 794.05, former s. 796.03, former s. 796.035, s. 825.1025(2)(b), s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), s. 847.0145, or s. 985.701(1).
(d)1. When the state in a criminal action intends to offer evidence of other criminal offenses under paragraph (a), paragraph (b), or paragraph (c), no fewer than 10 days before trial, the state shall furnish to the defendant or to the defendant’s counsel a written statement of the acts or offenses it intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information. No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal.
2. When the evidence is admitted, the court shall, if requested, charge the jury on the limited purpose for which the evidence is received and is to be considered. After the close of the evidence, the jury shall be instructed on the limited purpose for which the evidence was received and that the defendant cannot be convicted for a charge not included in the indictment or information.
(3) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s. 90.610.
History.s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 2, ch. 90-40; s. 26, ch. 93-156; s. 473, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 2001-221; s. 9, ch. 2008-172; s. 2, ch. 2011-220; s. 14, ch. 2012-97; s. 15, ch. 2014-160.

F.S. 90.404 on Google Scholar

F.S. 90.404 on Casetext

Amendments to 90.404


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 90.404
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 90.404.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

NEWBY, v. STATE, 272 So. 3d 862 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . In its classic form, the Williams rule, which was first codified at section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes . . .

COOLEY, v. STATE, 273 So. 3d 258 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . State , 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1960) ; see also § 90.404(2)(b)1., Fla. Stat. . . . See § 90.404(2)(b)1., Fla. Stat. . . .

STUBBS, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 631 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . The two witnesses' testimony was admissible under section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (2017). . . . State , 262 So.3d 228, 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (observing that under section 90.404(2)(c), "evidence . . . The supreme court confronted section 90.404(2) in McLean v. State , 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2006). . . . The two-step process when a trial court confronts a section 90.404(2) issue is that the "court first . . . The evidence was admissible under section 90.404(2)(b) and (c). See State v. . . .

STATE v. KNOWLES,, 265 So. 3d 733 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . The State timely filed a notice pursuant to section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), of its intent . . .

GONZALEZ, v. STATE, 271 So. 3d 80 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ."); see §§ 90.404(2) and 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .

MENDEZ, v. STATE, 271 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . . No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal. § 90.404(d), Fla. . . . the category of relevant evidence under section 90.402; therefore, no pretrial notice under section 90.404 . . . Ehrhardt, supra, at § 404.17 ("Because the evidence is admissible under section 90.402, rather than 90.404 . . . (2), the ten day notice provision in section 90.404(2) is not applicable. . . .

WADE, v. STATE, 265 So. 3d 677 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . ." § 90.404(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .

PITTS, v. STATE, 263 So. 3d 834 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . notice stated that this collateral crime evidence would be introduced "pursuant to Florida Statute 90.404 . . . Rather, the court found the evidence admissible under section 90.404(2)(c), Florida Statutes, to prove . . . Section 90.404(2)(d) 1., Florida Statutes, requires the State to give written notice of its intent to . . . (2)(b) 2., or a "sexual offense" defined in section 90.404(2)(c) 2. . . . Because this language is identical to the language in section 90.404(2)(b) 1., the two statutes should . . .

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. v. ROLLAND,, 271 So. 3d 33 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Koelber, 389 So.2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) ) ); see also § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

WHISBY, v. STATE, 262 So. 3d 228 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Although the State sought admission of collateral-crime evidence under section 90.404(2)(a), Florida . . . Statutes, we find that it was admissible under section 90.404(2)(c). . . . (2)(a), we conclude that it was admissible under section 90.404(2)(c). . . . sufficient record to affirm its admission under section 90.404(2)(c). . . . 90.404(2)(a). . . .

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

. . . So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) ] -rule evidence, "is governed by the requirements and limitations of section 90.404 . . . (quoting § 90.404, Fla. Stat.). . . .

M. P. a v. STATE, 259 So. 3d 938 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . The State did not file a notice of intent to rely on an uncharged crime, pursuant to section 90.404(2 . . .

LOWE, v. STATE, 259 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2018)

. . . See § 90.404(1), (2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017). . . .

SIMMONS, v. STATE, 257 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . ." § 90.404(2)(d)1, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . only required to give notice of its intent to rely on Williams[ ] rule evidence pursuant to section 90.404 . . .

AGUILA, v. STATE, 255 So. 3d 522 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 90.404(2)(b) provides that prior acts of child molestation are admissible in a criminal case . . . Section 90.404(2)(b)"broadly provides that evidence of the defendant's commission of other acts of child . . . However, despite the relaxed standard of admissibility in child molestation cases under section 90.404 . . . As used in section 90.404(2)(b), "child molestation" includes, among other crimes, the sexual battery . . . See § 90.404(2)(b) 2. . . .

TAYLOR, v. STATE, 256 So. 3d 950 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . of the case, the State filed what is commonly referred to as a " Williams Rule" notice under section 90.404 . . . Because Taylor was charged with a crime involving child molestation, pursuant to section 90.404(2)(b) . . . State , 176 So.3d 310, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), even though section 90.404(2)(b) 1. broadened the admissibility . . . So.2d 1248, 1258-59 (Fla. 2006) (acknowledging that the 2001 enactment by the Legislature of section 90.404 . . . The definition of "child molestation" is set forth in section 90.404(2)(b) 2. . . .

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

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

G. TRUSSELL, v. STATE, 256 So. 3d 935 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . timely objection asserting that the State was introducing improper character evidence in violation of § 90.404 . . . comment asserting that the State was introducing improper character evidence in violation of section 90.404 . . . persisted in advancing this uncharged and unproven theory, the defense objected, referencing section 90.404 . . .

BUHLER, v. STATE, 247 So. 3d 1 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . sustaining the defendant's objection to the state's notice of intent to offer evidence under section 90.404 . . .

WOOD, v. STATE, 238 So. 3d 924 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . ." § 90.404(2)(b)(1), Fla. Stat.; see also Williams v. State , 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959). . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 237 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . victim's experience with Thompson, an incident that was introduced as similar-act evidence under section 90.404 . . .

HYRE, v. STATE, 240 So. 3d 47 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (codified in section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes ). . . .

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

. . . Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence of Other Criminal Offenses (Williams Rule Evidence) under section 90.404 . . . The former is governed by section 90.404, Florida Statutes, whereas the latter is governed by the general . . .

FOSTER, v. STATE, 232 So. 3d 512 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . As the case progressed, the State filed a Williams rule notice pursuant to section 90.404(2)(d)(l), Florida . . . opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” § 90.404 . . . See § 90.404(2)(b)(l), Fla. . . .

RAZZ, v. STATE, 231 So. 3d 479 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . State, 839 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla. 4th 2003); see also § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . Section 90.404(2)(a), " Florida- Statutes (2016), states in its entirety: Similar fact evidence of other . . . but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. § 90.404 . . .

D. SUGGS, v. STATE, 238 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See §§ 90.404(1), (2)(a), Fla. . . .

J. KIRKLAND- WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that similar fact evidence of collateral crimes . . . intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information.” § 90.404 . . . This was more than adequate to meet the requirements of section 90.404(2)(d)(1). . . .

O FLAHERTY- LEWIS, v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . State, 112 So.3d 564, 565-66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (internal citation omitted); see also § 90.404(2)(a) . . .

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

. . . solely to prove the defendant’s bad character or propensity to commit crime, in violation of section 90.404 . . .

TILLMAN, v. STATE, 247 So. 3d 523 (Fla. App. Ct. 2017)

. . . Under section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), and McLean v. . . .

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

. . . Eh-rhardt distinguished it from Williams rule evidence, stating “it seems that both the language of Section 90.404 . . .

CROSBY, v. STATE, 222 So. 3d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Id. at 291-92 (citing § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000)). . . .

GILCHREASE, v. STATE, 219 So. 3d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat; (2015). . . . The February 25 incident, therefore, was relevant and admissible as motive evidence under section 90.404 . . .

COZZIE, v. STATE, 225 So. 3d 717 (Fla. 2017)

. . . admissibility of evidence of other crimes, .wrongs, or acts that has since been codified in section 90.404 . . .

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. RE SHEPARD, 217 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 2017)

. . . introducing evidence at the final hearing—over her objections—purportedly excluded by sections 90.403 and 90.404 . . .

BROOKINS, v. STATE, 228 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2017)

. . . trial, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce this collateral crime evidence under section 90.404 . . . State, 829 So.2d 901, 911 (Fla. 2002) (citing § 90.404(1)(c), Fla. Stat.). . . .

STYLES, v. STATE, 217 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 90.404(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . . § 90.404(l)(b)l., Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .

R. LAMB, v. STATE, 212 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959); see also § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . .

JONES, v. STATE, 212 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 2017)

. . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959), and section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2013). . . . This view is commonly referred to in Florida as the Williams rule and is codified in section 90.404(2 . . . Section 90.404(2)(d)2., Florida Statutes (2013), governs the use of a limiting jury instruction when . . .

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

. . . , also known as Williams-rule evidence, “is governed by the requirements and limitations of section 90.404 . . . (quoting § 90.404, Fla. Stat.). . . .

GOGGINS, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that “[s]imilar fact evidence of other crimes . . .

SCOTT, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

HOJAN, v. STATE v. L., 212 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 2017)

. . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) has been codified in section 90.404, Florida Statutes. . . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .

SOLOMON, III, v. STATE, 206 So.3d 822 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses is not subject to the notice requirements of section 90.404 . . .

ANGELO, v. STATE, 204 So.3d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . State, 99 So.3d 1001, 1002-03 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding that pursuant to section 90.404(l)(b), Florida . . .

McCUIN, v. STATE, 198 So. 3d 1066 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. . . .

D. FELDER, v. STATE, 198 So. 3d 951 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . including other crimes, wrongs, or acts, as the introduction of such evidence would be contrary to section 90.404 . . .

ARIZONA CHEMICAL COMPANY, LLC, v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., 193 So. 3d 95 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

ORTIZ, v. STATE, 188 So. 3d 113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Reverse Williams rule evidence is evidence offered by the defense pursuant-to .section 90.404(2), Florida . . .

CASS, v. STATE, 190 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.404(2)(a) (excluding evidence of other acts when offered solely to prove bad character or propensity . . .

HARRIGAN, v. STATE, 184 So. 3d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . permitted to introduce into evidence a December 2007 crime involving the defendant pursuant to section 90.404 . . . discretion by allowing the State to introduce the 2007 crime evidence pursuant to Williams and section 90.404 . . . ), specifically arguing that the 2007 crime was not “relevant to prove a material fact in issue.” § 90.404 . . .

C. HANF, v. STATE, 182 So. 3d 704 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . molesting any other child, although “similar fact” evidence did come in (over his objection) under section 90.404 . . .

D. WALKER, v. STATE, 180 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). “The test of inadmissibility is a lack of relevancy.” Conde v. . . .

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

. . . During the pendency of the case, the State filed a Williams rule notice pursuant to section 90.404(2) . . . In 2001, the Florida Legislature enacted section 90.404'(2)(b), which addresses the admissibility of . . . State, 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2006), collateral offense evidence admitted pursuant to section 90.404(2) . . . In applying the balancing test set forth in section 90.403, in conjunction with section 90.404(2)(b), . . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), later codified in section 90.404, Florida Statutes. . . . .

D. SMITH, Jr. v. STATE, 170 So. 3d 124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . State, 19 So.3d 277, 291-92 (Fla.2009) (citing § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000)). . . .

MOSS, v. STATE, 169 So. 3d 223 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), known as the Williams rule, addresses the admission of . . . State, 513 So.2d 122, 124 (Fla.1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 90.404(2)(b), Fla. . . . See § 90.404(2)(b), (c), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 166 So. 3d 195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . See § 90.404(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). In Heuring v. . . . After Heuring was decided, the Legislature enacted section 90.404(2)(b), see ch. 2001-221, § 1, Laws . . . Section 90.404(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes (2014) provides: ' In a criminal case in which the defendant . . . Thus, even in child molestation cases, the application of section 90.403 "ensures that section 90.404 . . .

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

. . . State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla.1990) (citing § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985)). . . .

JACOBS a k a v. ATLANTIC COAST REFINING, INC. d b a ACR, 165 So. 3d 714 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2013). . . .

LOPEZ, v. STATE, 169 So. 3d 143 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), allows for the introduction of collateral act evidence . . . of child molestation ... may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.” § 90.404 . . . In that case, the Supreme Court held that the admission of collateral crime evidence under section 90.404 . . .

T. JOSEPH, v. STATE, 153 So. 3d 992 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . to a missing engine was not sufficient to constitute similar fact evidence admissible under section 90.404 . . .

WADE, v. STATE, 156 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 2014)

. . . .” § 90.404(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

BARNETT, v. STATE Of, 151 So. 3d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Pursuant to section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes: Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or . . . but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. § 90.404 . . .

HARRELSON, v. STATE, 146 So. 3d 171 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 90.404(2)(b)l., Fla. Stat. . . . incorrectly admitted as inextricably intertwined with the battery, may have been admissible under section 90.404 . . . See McLean, 934 So.2d at 1263 (approving use of collateral crime evidence admitted under section 90.404 . . .

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

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. § 90.404 . . . See McLean, 934 So.2d at 1259 (explaining that section 90.404(2)(b) “broadly provides that evidence of . . .

PERALTA- MORALES, v. STATE, 143 So. 3d 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Under section 90.404(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes (2010), “[i]n a criminal case in which the defendant is . . . Although section 90.404(2)(b) “broadly provides that evidence of the defendant’s commission of other . . .

KYNE, v. STATE, 141 So. 3d 759 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . the State had not filed a notice of intent to use evidence of prior bad acts as required by section 90.404 . . . In turn, the State argued that it need not comply with the requirements of section 90.404(2) because . . . evidence of a prior wrong or act, the State did not file the pretrial notice required under section 90.404 . . .

J. JACKSON, v. STATE, 140 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . State, 19 So.3d 277, 291-92 (Fla.2009) (emphasis in original) (citing section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes . . . See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 140 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 2014)

. . . charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404 . . .

STATE v. FERNANDEZ a k a, 141 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404 . . .

WILCOX, v. STATE, 143 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2014)

. . . charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404 . . .

ANTOINE, v. STATE, 138 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Under section 90.404(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), “evidence of a pertinent character trait of the . . .

J. CARLISLE, v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 479 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Carlisle further contends the evidence was admissible under sections 90.404(2) and 90.608(2), Florida . . . A concurring opinion briefly discussed the application of section 90.404(2)(a) ('Williams rule evidence . . . Section 90.404(2) (Reverse Williams Rule Evidence) The evidence of the victim’s recantation was also . . . admissible under section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), as reverse Williams rule evidence. . . . For evidence to be admissible under section 90.404(2)(a), the evidence must have probative value to show . . .

FINCHER, v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . to trial, the State filed notice of intent to introduce similar fact evidence, pursuant to section 90.404 . . . The trial court relied on section 90.404(2)(b)(l), which addresses the admissibility of Williams rule . . . molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. § 90.404 . . . court must consider in determining whether collateral crime evidence should be admitted under section 90.404 . . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), and codified by section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 131 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 2013)

. . . APPENDIX 2.4 EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS -WILLIAMS RULE” § 90.404(2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) . . . See section 90.404(2)(b), Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2001, in child molestation eases. . . . See 90.404(2)(c) Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2011, for cases involving sexual offenses. . . . See section 90.404(2)(b), Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2001, in child molestation cases. . . . See 90.404(2)(c) Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2011, for cases involving sexual offenses. . . .

LOUREIRO, v. STATE, 133 So. 3d 948 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Section 90.404, Florida Statutes (2001), provides that evidence of a person’s character is inadmissible . . . The specific exception pertinent to this case is section 90.404(l)(b)2., which allows for the admission . . . trial court erred, Loureiro cites to the only Florida case which makes a specific reference to section 90.404 . . . We also note that the language of section 90.404(l)(b)2. does not state the rebuttal evidence is limited . . . Thus, we conclude section 90.404(l)(b)2. is a statutory exception if the supreme court has adopted a . . .

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

. . . The requirements and limitations of section 90.404, Florida Statutes (2009), govern similar fact evidence . . . that the threat evidence constitutes Williams rule evidence subject to the requirements of section 90.404 . . . Section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (2009), provides that “[similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs . . . intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information. § 90.404 . . .

ZUNIGA, v. STATE, 121 So. 3d 640 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . participation in four robberies, was improper admission of prior bad acts, inadmissible under section 90.404 . . .

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

. . . allowing the state to introduce collateral crime evidence without providing ten days’ notice under section 90.404 . . . The notice requirement of section 90.404(2)(d)l. did not apply, and even if it did, any error was harmless . . .

R. McDADE, v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See, e.g., § 90.404(2), Fla. . . . See, e.g., § 90.404(2), Fla. . . .

McCULLUM, v. STATE, 117 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . In criminal prosecutions for child molestation, section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes, permits the use . . . evidence of prior acts of child molestation “for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.” § 90.404 . . .

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

. . . State, 72 So.3d 248, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . State, 22 So.3d 619, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also §§ 90.402, 90.403, 90.404(2), Fla. . . .

FEY, v. STATE, 125 So. 3d 828 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . to provide written notice that it would use Williams rule evidence at trial, as required by section 90.404 . . . Regarding the lack of notice required by section 90.404(2)(d), Florida Statutes, “[a] lack of notice . . .

NUNEZ, v. STATE, 109 So. 3d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . file or serve a notice of its intent to rely upon other crimes, wrongs or acts, pursuant to section 90.404 . . . charged in the information nor properly noticed and determined to be admissible pursuant to section 90.404 . . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (establishing the “Williams rule” test, later codified in section 90.404 . . . constituted "similar fact” evidence of which the State was required to give proper notice under section 90.404 . . .

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

. . . .” § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). We explained in McGirth v. . . . The requirements and limitations of section 90.404 govern similar fact evidence while the general rule . . . See § 90.404(2), Fla. Stat. (2008); see, e.g., Durousseau v. . . .

CORRELL, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 932 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . court, Correll argued only that the evidence violated Florida’s Williams rule, codified at Section 90.404 . . . the state law ground with the following analysis: Correll argues that this testimony violated section 90.404 . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 110 So. 3d 954 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Similar crime evidence, also known as Williams rule evidence, is codified in section 90.404(2)(a), Florida . . .

CORBETT, v. STATE, 113 So. 3d 965 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . whether ‘a sufficiently unique pattern of criminal activity [justifies] admission’ ” under section 90.404 . . . State, 110 So.2d 654, 663 (Fla.1959); see § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . .

STATE v. SANDOVAL,, 125 So. 3d 213 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . The clearly established law applying to this type of issue is section 90.404(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes . . . molestation is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.” § 90.404 . . .

RICKETTS, v. STATE, 125 So. 3d 194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . State, 72 So.3d 248, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat.). . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 105 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 2012)

. . . charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404 . . .

BAKER, v. STATE, 102 So. 3d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . State, 885 So.2d 1010, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008)). . . .

PATRICK, v. STATE, 104 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985). . . .

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

. . . The Williams rule is codified in section 90.404 of the Florida Statutes, and states: Similar fact evidence . . . but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. § 90.404 . . . the State did not provide proper notice of its intent to use such evidence, as is required by section 90.404 . . . admissible as Williams rule evidence because of the State’s failure to provide proper notice under section 90.404 . . . No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal.” § 90.404(2)(c)l. . . .

VARGAS, v. STATE, 101 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat (2011). . . .

SAVAGE, v. STATE, 99 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . sure, “a distinction between reputation evidence and evidence of specific acts admitted under section 90.404 . . . trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion.” § 90.404 . . . Pursuant to section 90.404(l)(b), however, “evidence of prior specific acts of violence by the victim . . .

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

. . . . § 90.404(2)(a). . . .

COLEMAN, v. STATE, 126 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . motion to allow similar fact evidence of “other acts involving child molestation” pursuant to section 90.404 . . . (2)(a) and as child molestation evidence under section 90.404(2)(b)l. and McLean v. . . . The trial court relied on section 90.404(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2008), to justify admission . . . Section 90.404(2)(a) and (b) state the following: (a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, . . . We find that the collateral act was admissible only under section 90.404(2)(b). . . .

ELMER, v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 198 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 90.404(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes (2010), provides, “In a criminal case in which the defendant . . .

RUBINGER, v. STATE, 98 So. 3d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . issue is character evidence and, therefore, is inadmissible to prove culpable negligence under section 90.404 . . . While we agree that such evidence is not admissible under section 90.404(1), the evidence in this case . . . Section 90.404(1) provides, "Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is inadmissible . . .