It’s Wednesday, folks, that sanctified day of the week when so many good things happen to so many people, yes that one glorified day when all things judicial occur on a little website to the south, that epiphanic moment where all of us lawyers can bathe in the judicial stew that our resplendently-robed brethren to the south have been cooking, oh hail you know the drill…it’s 3d DCA Watch:
Miami-Dade v. Asad:
Did you know there are rules of evidence in state court and that trial judges sometimes apply them?News to me too!But apparently there is a rule regarding “relevant” evidence and its probative/prejudicial value:
Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2003), provides that “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.” Additionally, relevant evidence may be “admissible as to one party or for one purpose, but inadmissible as to another party or for another purpose.” § 90.107, Fla. Stat. (2003). When such evidence is admitted, “the court, upon request, shall restrict [that] evidence to its proper scope and so inform the jury at the time it is admitted.” § 90.107 (emphasis added). Thus, if the contested evidence was relevant to any of the three claims against the Defendants, it could properly be admitted under sections 90.403 and 90.107.
All three of the Defendants’ examples of “irrelevant” evidence were relevant and had probative value in the claim of malicious prosecution, though perhaps not false arrest. Because of the limited admissibility of the contested evidence, the Defendants had the right to request a limiting instruction, but they failed to do so, thereby waiving that right. We conclude that the record below demonstrates that the danger of unfair prejudice was insufficient to substantially outweigh the probative value of the contested evidence going to the claim of malicious prosecution. In the absence of clear abuse of discretion by the trial court, we affirm the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.
What do you know — limiting instructions, too!They’ve got everything in state court nowadays.
United Auto v. Lopez:
I looked up “apodictic” in my trusty 3d DCA dictionary, and here’s what it said:
ap·o·dic·tic (p-dktk) adj.: a word that Judge Shepherd really really likes. A lot. Did I mention he really likes this word?
Oh lookie — by sheer coinkidink, here’s an opinion from Judge Shepherd today that somehow manages to fit in this fine word dating to 1645 — now that is old school:
It is also apodictic that the failure to follow “clearly established law,” including “recent controlling case law” constitutes grounds for issuance of the writ. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 890 (Fla. 2003). Such is the case here.
“Also apodictic” — hey, the Judge is an alliteralist too!
Let me try a few — it is abundantly apodictic that United Auto always loses in the circuit court appellate division…..the apodictic apology was not accepted…..an apodictic a day keeps the doctor away…..the always apodictic early bird catches the worm….
Hey, this is fun!