EBENHART

v.

HOWARD COMMUNITY SERVICES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Rodriguez v. State, 753 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2000)
  …impact. A trial judge is afforded significant discretion in determining whether the prejudicial nature of evidence outweighs any relevance the evidence may have at trial. See, e.g., Williamson v. State, 681 So. 2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1200, 117 S.Ct. 1561, 137 L.Ed.2d 708 (1997). As we stated in Williamson: Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. Amoros v. State, 531 So. 2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1988). In reviewing testimony about a col…
• Pressley Alston v. State, 723 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1998)
  …aterial fact; thus it was relevant evidence as defined by section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1995).12 In respect to the objection based upon section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995),13 Williamson v. State, 681 So. 2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1200, 117 S.Ct. 1561, 137 L.Ed.2d 708 (1997), is applicable. In Williamson, we recognized that proper application of section 90.403 requires a balancing test by the trial judge. Only when the unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value o…
• Robertson v. State, 780 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
  …ng whether its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect, thereby rendering such evidence admissible. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1997); Rodriguez v. State, 753 So. 2d 29 (Fla.2000); Williamson v. State, 681 So. 2d 688 (Fla.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1200, 117 S.Ct. 1561, 137 L.Ed.2d 708 (1997). Such a determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. See Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d 660 (Fla.1994). Keeping these standards in mind, we determine that the trial court did not ab…