Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...However, there is an exception to this rule. "The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required . . . and other evidence of its contents is admissible when . . . [a]ll originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith. " § 90.954, Fla....

...ant as the Court is unable to determine the precise terms and validity of the terms. On appeal, ESI argues that as the written executed agreement was lost, the trial court should have allowed it to establish the contents of the agreement pursuant to section 90.954, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes (2008), provides, inter alia, that the original of a writing is not required and other evidence of its contents is admissible when "all originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith." Florida law expressly permits the introduction of parol evidence to prove the contents of a contract where the proponent provides a satisfactory explanation that the original contract was lost or destroyed. § 90.954(3), Fla....

...inst the other defendants. See O'Neal v. Bolling, 409 So.2d 1171, 1172 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (noting that while manual reproduction of documents were not duplicates, on remand, trial court could allow party to establish contents of documents under section 90.954); Action Fire Safety Equip., Inc....

...s not a prohibited use of secondary evidence under Florida's best evidence rule. Moreover, even if the printout were offered to prove the contents of the notice, secondary evidence is admissible for such purpose if one of the exceptions set forth in section 90.954 is established....

...Thus, for example, the printout would be admissible to prove the contents of the notice if it were established that all originals were lost or destroyed and their unavailability was not the result of bad faith on the part of the proponent of the evidence. § 90.954(1)....

...e best evidence rule, sections 90.951 et seq., Florida Statutes (1989). The best evidence rule allows a duplicate to be admitted under section 90.953(3) unless "[i]t is unfair, under the circumstance, to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original." Section 90.954 provides for the admissibility of a duplicate when: (1) All originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith....

...royed after he and the proposed buyer learned of the lis pendens. Saporito was not afforded an opportunity to explain what became of the second contract. In both instances Saporito was not permitted to make a proper showing under sections 90.953 and 90.954 that the originals were not available, and he was clearly prejudiced by his inability to present a case that the originals were unavailable and the duplicates thus admissible....

...) as follows: 90.952 Requirement of originals.— Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording, or photograph. § 90.952, Fla. Stat (2000). Section 90.954 of the Florida Statutes (2000) further explains that: 90.954 Admissibility of other evidence of contents.—The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required, except as provided in s....

...ritten notice from the adverse party that the contents of such original would be *728 subject to proof at the hearing, and such original is not produced at the hearing. (4) The writing, recording, or photograph is not related to a controlling issue. § 90.954, Fla....

...The Code adopts the better view that once a predicate for secondary evidence is laid, no distinction should be made between forms of secondary evidence. Significantly, the term other evidence, not secondary evidence, is used in the Florida Evidence Code. See § 90.954, Fla....

...4th DCA 1992), that term appears nowhere in the statute. Although duplicates are acceptable in most cases, see § 90.953, Fla. Stat. (2008), the admissibility of "other evidence" of the contents of a "writing, recording, or photograph" is governed by section 90.954, titled "Admissibility of other evidence of contents." It provides: The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required, except as provided in s....

...Second, Lowery argues that the photocopy of the photocopy is not the best available secondary evidence. It is true that former Florida law recognized degrees of secondary evidence. Wicker v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 430, 31 So.2d 635 (1947). However, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1979), abolishes the distinction made between degrees of secondary evidence. Law Revision Counsel note section 90.954; Evidence in Florida § 8.11, The Florida Bar (2d ed....

...tape recording itself which was lost by the state. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Appellant maintains that while a written transcript of her tape-recorded confession would be admissible as secondary evidence under the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes (1981), if the tape itself (as the best evidence, section 90.952, Florida Statutes (1981)) was lost or destroyed, the transcript in this case was not admissible because its authenticity was never established as required under the code, section 90.901....

...*576 The best evidence rule requires that “when the contents of a writing, recording or photograph are being proved, an original must be offered unless a statutory excuse for the lack of an original exists.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 952.1 (2012 ed.). “If a section 90.954 excuse cannot be shown, the testimony of a witness ......

...timony. In sum, the detective’s testimony in this case — that she saw a better camera angle, not present on the video in evidence, that clearly depicted appellant’s face — violated the best evidence rule. Exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule Section 90.954, Florida Statutes (2012), sets forth certain exceptions to the requirement for originals: The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required, except as *577 provided in s....

...by written notice from the adverse party that the contents of such original would be subject to proof at the hearing, and such original is not produced at the hearing. (4) The writing, recording, or photograph is not related to a controlling issue. § 90.954, Fla....

...In Dyer , the State had a technical problem with a surveillance video. 26 So.3d at 702 . After consulting with technical support and determining the video was unplayable, the State then asked the store manager to testify about his observations of the video’s contents. Id. We found that the section 90.954(1) “lost or destroyed” exception to the best evidence rule did not apply because “[t]he state’s inability to show the video recording due to temporary technical difficulties does not qualify the DVD as being ‘lost or destroyed’ within the meaning of the statute.” Id....

...eo was unrecoverable from the neighbor’s system. As the proponent of the evidence, the State had the burden of establishing its admissibility. The State thus failed to establish that the video view was “lost or destroyed” within the meaning of section 90.954 and none of the other exceptions are applicable....

...The best evidence rule is set forth in section 90.952, Florida Statutes (2002), as follows: Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording, or photograph. Section 90.954, Florida Statutes, amplifies the preceding statute by providing that: The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required, except as provided in s....

...The evidence is unavailable for the plaintiffs' use and they have demonstrated an inability to proceed without it. 427 So.2d at 308. Ordinarily where a party in possession loses or destroys crucial record evidence a burden is imposed on that party to prove that the loss or destruction was not in bad faith. See § 90.954, Fla....

...Matkins, [154 Okla. 232] 7 P.2d 414 (Okl. 1932). However, it should be noted that under § 90.704 the basis of an expert's testimony does not have to be admissible. On the present state of the record, the question is answered by the best evidence rule, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1983), which provides: Admissibility of other evidence of contents....

...A bill of lading, as the trial court correctly acknowledged, is a contract for transportation of goods. [2] Florida law expressly permits the introduction of parol evidence to prove the contents of a contract, where the proponent provides a satisfactory explanation that the original contract was lost or destroyed. [3] § 90.954(1), Fla....

...Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania sought to recover the $49,000 payment as subrogee of B & G. [2] A bill of lading is a receipt for goods, a contract for their carriage, and is documentary evidence of title to goods. Black's Law Dictionary 168 (6th ed. 1990). [3] Section 90.954 provides, inter alia, that the original of a writing is not required and other evidence of its contents is admissible when "all originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith."

...g of section 90.951(4)(a), and, therefore, cannot be admitted under section 90.953, which provides for the admission of duplicates. Assuming the Lopezes are correct in their contention that the copy is not a duplicate, 1 it is still admissible under section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1983). Section 90.954 is broader than section 90.953 —a copy which is not admissible under section 90.953 as a duplicate may still be admissible under section 90.954. See Lowery v. State, 402 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 954.1 (2d ed. 1984). Section 90.954 provides for admission of other evidence of the contents of the writing (i.e., evidence other than an original) if one of its four criteria is satisfied....

...e is properly admitted under section 90.953, it also precludes consideration of secondary evidence. If, and only if, neither an original nor its equivalent is available, secondary evidence regarding the contents of the original can be admitted under section 90.954, which states, in relevant part: "The original of a writing ......

...dence did not preclude consideration of secondary evidence in determining the contents of the original. We note, however, that while Rainess' document was not admissible under section 90.953, it was clearly admissible, and ultimately admitted, under section 90.954 as secondary evidence. See Garcia v. Lopez, 483 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) ("Section 90.954 is broader than section 90.953-a copy which is not admissible under section 90.953 as a duplicate may still be admissible under section 90.954."). Having established that the original copy of the IRA Simplifier was lost or misplaced, and that there was no equivalent of the original proffered, the trial court, pursuant to section 90.954, properly admitted the Bank's secondary evidence regarding the contents of Machida's IRA Simplifier....

...The best evidence rule “requires that when the contents of a writing, recording or photograph are being proved, the original must be offered unless a statutory excuse for the lack of an original exists.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 Fla. Prac., Evidence § 952.1 (2021 ed.); see also § 90.954, Fla....

...clause of the Fifth Amendment and fundamental fairness entitles a defendant access to relevant and material evidence which is necessary to his defense.”) (internal citations omitted). It is the analysis under those cases which is controlling. III. Section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes Finally, Yero maintains that the trial court erred in failing to exclude the testimony describing the content of the video. This claimed error, however, was unpreserved by a specific objection. See Corona v. State, 64 So.3d 1232, 1242 (Fla.2011). In any event, the testimony was admissible under section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes (2012)....

...An exception to this rule provides that “[t]he original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required ... and other evidence of its contents is admissible when ... [a]ll originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith.” § 90.954(1), Fla....

retrial to demonstrate its compliance with section 90.954 of the Florida Evidence Code, Florida Statutes

...prove a premeditated intent to kill, there was more than ample evidence of such an intent. And while it appears that appellant’s best evidence objection to testimony relating the contents of a voice message from appellant may have been properly denied based upon section 90.954(3), Florida Statutes (2013), even if error, the admission of the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We remand, however, to delete the judgment of conviction’s reference to a “deadly” weapon on the attempted first degree murder charge, as it appears to be a clerical error....

159 Fla. 430, 31 So.2d 635 (1947). However, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1979), abolishes the distinction

...of duplicate].” (emphasis supplied). If the trial court is satisfied with Bolling’s predicate proof that the originals are lost and no duplicates ever existed, it may allow Bolling to establish the contents of the notes in the manner provided in Section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1981), which may be by oral testimony....