BOWMAR INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
FIDELITY ELECTRONICS, LTD., INC. AND FIDELITY ELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL SALES COMPANY, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bowmar Instrument Corporation appealed the trial court's admission of summary testimony offered by Fidelity Electronics' witness regarding voluminous data. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the admission, holding that while Section 90.956, Florida Statutes requires written notice of intent to use summaries, the technical violation caused no substantial harm because Bowmar had adequate access to the underlying data and summary to prepare its cross-examination.
Section 90.956 applies to summaries presented through witness testimony as well as written summaries offered directly in evidence. However, the trial court properly admitted the summary testimony because although a technical violation occurred by failing to provide written notice, the violation caused no substantial harm since the underlying data and summary were made available to the opposing party sufficiently in advance to allow adequate preparation for cross-examination.
[1] Florida Statute § 90.956 applies to summaries offered through witness testimony, not just written summaries intended for evidence.
[2] A technical violation of Florida Statute § 90.956 regarding notice of intent to use a summary does not require reversal if no substantial harm results to the opposing par…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 90.-956, Florida Statutes (1983), applies not only to a written summary which a party intends to offer in evidence, but also to a summary-which, as in the present case, , is offered through the testimony of a witness.”
Establishes the broad scope of the statute's application to all forms of summary presentation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFidelity Electronics presented testimony from a witness regarding a summary of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs. Although the appellees…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Best Evidence Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Contrary to the ruling of the trial court, we are of the view that Section 90.-956, Florida Statutes (1983),1 applies not only to a written summary which a party intends to offer in evidence, but also to a summary-which, as in the present case, , is offered through the testimony of a witness. We nonetheless affirm the trial court’s decision to admit the summary testimony because the. record reflects that the written summary to which the witness referred and the data underlying the summary were in fact made available to the appellant suffi-, ciently in advance of the presentation of this testimony so as to enable the appellant to adequately prepare to voir dire and cross-examine the witness. Therefore, although á technical violation of Section 90.-956 occurred when the appellees failed to give written notice of their intention to use the summary, that violation caused no substantial harm to the appellant. See S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc. v. Titan Agencies, Inc., 423 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
We have considered the remaining points on appeal and the point on appellees’ cross-appeal and have concluded that no error has been demonstrated.
Affirmed.
. Section 90.956, Florida Statutes (1983), provides:
"When it is not convenient to examine in court the contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs, a party may present them in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation by calling a qualified witness. The party intending to use such a summary must give timely written notice of his intention to use the summary, proof of which shall be filed with the court, and shall make the summary and originals or duplicates of the data from which the summary is compiled available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. A judge may order that they be produced in court.”
The federal counterpart, Fed.R.Evid. 1006, provides that only the underlying source material be made available to other parties, not that the summary itself be made available. See United States v. Foley, 598 F. 2d 1323 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1043, 100 S.Ct. 727, 62 L.Ed.2d 728 (1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Batlemento v. Dove Fountain, Inc., 593 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…de available to the appellant sufficiently in advance of the presentation of this testimony so as to enable the appellant to adequately prepare to voir dire and cross-examine the witness. Bowmar Instrument Corp. v. Fidelity Electronics, Ltd., Inc., 466 So. 2d 344, 345 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1985). In this case, the summary was not provided to appellants prior to trial, which appellees admit.11 Appellees contend that all underlying documentation was provided to appellants prior to tr…
-
Health Options, Inc. v. Palmetto Pathology Servs., P.A., 983 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…paying for the disputed services. . HOI and the members agreed to provide this benefit so that, for example, medical providers would not directly bill the members for the medical services. . See Bowmar Instrument Corp. v. Fid. Elecs., Ltd., Inc., 466 So. 2d 344, 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding that while failing to give written notice of a summary may be a technical violation of section 90.956, Fla. Stat. (1983), the objecting party suffered no harm because the summary and supporting documents were made av…
Authorities Cited
- Foley v. United States, 444 U.S. 1043 (U.S. 1980)
- Cerilli v. United States, 444 U.S. 1043 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. Foley, 598 F.2d 1323 (4th Cir. 1979)
- S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc. v. Titan Agencies, Inc., 423 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)