AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE

Fla. | 2004-12-09
No. SC04-103
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
891 So. 2d 1037 Florida Supreme Court (2004) Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court approved legislative amendments to the Florida Evidence Code enacted between 2002-2003, including changes to interpreter services, sexual assault counselor privileges, business records certification processes, and evidentiary rulings, while deferring consideration of one amendment pending supplemental information.


Holding

The Court adopted chapters 2002-22 section 18; 2002-246 section 1; and 2003-259 sections 2 and 3 to the extent they are procedural, effective from the dates the amendments became law. The Court deferred consideration of chapter 2003-259 section 1 pending supplemental information from the committee.


Headnotes

[1] A court may adopt legislative amendments to the Florida Evidence Code that are procedural in nature.

[2] Requests for qualified interpreters for deaf persons are now channeled through the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Department of Education.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“we adopt chapters 2002-22, section 18; 2002-246, section 1; and 2003-259, sections 2 and 3 to the extent they are procedural”

States the Court's disposition regarding which amendments were adopted and the limitation to procedural amendments only.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee submitted a regular-cycle report recommending adoption of legislative amendments to the Florida E…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the regular-cycle report of The Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee (the committee), concerning recent legislative changes to the Florida Evidence Code made in chapters 2002-22, section 18; 2002-246, section 1; and 2003-259, sections 1, 2, and 3, Laws of Florida. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.130(c). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. The amendments at issue are those enacted by the Legislature since the last amendments to the Evidence Code were considered by this Court. See In re Amendments to the Fla. Evidence Code, 825 So. 2d 339 (Fla.2002) (adopting all legislative amendments to the Evidence Code made since 2000 to the extent they were procedural). The committee recommends that the Court adopt all of the legislative changes to the Florida Evidence Code. The committee’s recommendations were unanimously approved by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. The recommendations were published for comment in The Florida Bar News, and no comments were received.

Chapter 2002-22, section 18, amended section 90.6063, Florida Statutes, to reflect that requests for qualified interpreters for deaf persons are now channeled through the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Department of Education instead of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security. In chapter 2002-246, section 1, Laws of Florida, the Legislature amended section 90.5035, Florida Statutes, to expand the sexual assault counselor-victim privilege to include trained volunteers and to provide a specific definition for a trained volunteer. Chapter 2003-259, section 1, amended section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, to eliminate the need for an objection at trial in order to preserve an evidentiary ruling in those cases where the judge made a definitive ruling on the admissibility of the evidence. In chapter 2003-259, sections 2-3, Laws of Florida, the Legislature created a business records certification process that eliminates the need for a records custodian to testify at trial, thus amending two sections of the Florida Evidence Code.

Section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes, was added to provide that any party seeking to offer certain business records can do so by serving written notice of such intent and making this evidence available to all parties sufficiently in advance so a party has a fair opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the evidence before trial.1 Section 90.902, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide that one does not need extrinsic evidence of authenticity for evidence that is admissible under section 90.803(6), so long as a records custodian certifies that the business record meets certain requirements.

Consistent with the committee’s recommendations, we adopt chapters 2002-22, section 18; 2002-246, section 1; and 2003-259, sections 2 and 3 to the extent they are procedural. As to chapter 2003-259, section 1, we defer consideration of this amendment until we receive supplemental information that we have requested from the committee. Our approval of the various amendments is intended to be effective from the dates the amendments became law.

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. . The Legislature also amended section 90.803(6)(b) to make it easier to understand.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 210 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 2017)
    …see also In re Amends. to Fla. Evidence Code, 53 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 2011); In re Amends. to Fla. Evidence Code, 960 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2007); In re Amends. to Fla. Evidence Code—Section 90.104, 914 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2005); Amends. to Fla. Evidence Code, 891 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2004); In re Amends. to Fla. Evidence Code, 825 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2002); In re Fla. Evidence Code, 675 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1996); In re Fla. Evidence Code, 638 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1993); In re Amend. of Fla. Evidence Code, 497 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1986);…
  • Delisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018)
    …to the Fla. Evidence Code , 53 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 2011) ; In re Amends. to the Fla. Evidence Code , 960 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2007) ; In re Amends. to the Fla. Evidence Code-Section 90.104 , 914 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2005) ; Amends. to the Fla. Evidence Code , 891 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2004) ; In re Amends. to Fla. Evidence Code , 825 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2002) ; In re Fla. Evidence Code , 675 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1996) ; In re Fla. Evidence Code , 638 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1993) ; In re Amend. of Fla. Evidence Code , 497 So. 2d 239 (Fla…
  • Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
    …ROL AND/OR PROBATION REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS? AFFIRMED. VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur. . The supreme court has adopted this amendment to the extent it constitutes a rule of procedure. See generally Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 891 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.2004). . We reject the latter contention because the rule argued by appellant applies only to inadmissible hearsay. See Davis, 562 So. 2d at 433. . Like the Abd-Rahmaan court, we too have found only the one federal district court case of Ash…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw