MAYVIS GONZALEZ
v.
JIM MANESH, ET AL.
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.
A trial court's decision to exclude evidence under § 90.403, Fla. Stat., based on a weighing of probative value against prejudicial impact, will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court's determination of relevancy and its weighing of probative value against prejudicial impact under § 90.403, Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The weighing of relevance versus prejudice or confusion is best performed by the trial judge who is present and best able to compare the two.”
Sims v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 1991)
Mayvis Gonzalez appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County regarding the exclusion of certain evidence at trial.…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________
No. 3D24-0741 Lower Tribunal No. 19-26272-CA-01 ________________
Mayvis Gonzalez, Appellant,
vs.
Jim Manesh and Mimi Manesh, Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge.
Florida Advocates, and Carlos D. Cabrera (Dania Beach), for appellant.
The Law Office of Warren B. Kwavnick, PLLC, and Warren B. Kwavnick (Pembroke Pines), for appellees.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2024) (“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.”); Sims v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 1991) (“The weighing of relevance versus prejudice or confusion is best performed by the trial judge who is present and best able to compare the two.”); Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So. 2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“The determination of relevancy is within the discretion of the trial court. Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact before reaching its decision to admit or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.”) (citation omitted); see also Flores v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 787 So. 2d 955, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“Partiality, or any acts, relationships or motives reasonably likely to produce it, may be proved to impeach credibility.”) (citing McCormick on Evidence § 39 at 58–59 (5th ed. 1999)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- M. David Sims, M.D. v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1991)
- Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Flores v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 787 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)