§ 90.614, Fla. Stat. — Prior Statements of Witnesses
Plain English
This is the foundation rule for impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement — the bread and butter of cross-examination. Two parts. First, if you examine a witness about a prior written statement (or an oral one reduced to writing), the other side can demand to see it. Second, and most important: before you can prove a prior inconsistent statement with extrinsic evidence (the transcript, another witness), you must generally first give the witness a chance to explain or deny it, and let the other side question them about it. If the witness denies it — or won’t clearly admit it — then the extrinsic proof comes in. Party-opponent admissions under § 90.803(18) are exempt from this foundation requirement.
From the Courtroom
This is the foundation every trial lawyer drills: “You gave a deposition? You were under oath? You testified X?” You lay that groundwork before you spring the transcript. Skip it and the impeachment gets excluded — the most preventable error in all of cross-examination, and the easiest to exploit when the other side forgets.
Key Points & Authority
- § 90.614(1), Fla. Stat. — On the adverse party’s motion, a witness’s prior written (or reduced-to-writing) statement must be shown or its contents disclosed.
- § 90.614(2): extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is inadmissible unless the witness is first given a chance to explain or deny it (and the opponent a chance to question) — party-opponent admissions under § 90.803(18) are exempt.
- Federal parallel: Fed. R. Evid. 613 (numbering offset — FL 90.614 maps to federal 613).
Federal Parallel
The federal counterpart is Fed. R. Evid. 613 (numbering offset by one). It governs the same ground — examining a witness about a prior statement and the foundation needed before extrinsic proof of a prior inconsistent statement.
About this rule walkthrough
Part of The Evidence Code, hosted by John M. Phillips — Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, Court TV analyst, admitted in 8 states + 9 federal districts + SCOTUS.
Free consultation: (904) 444-4444 · About John Phillips
Educational only — not legal advice.
Rule Text (verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court)
(1) When a witness is examined concerning the witness’s prior written statement or concerning an oral statement that has been reduced to writing, the court, on motion of the adverse party, shall order the statement to be shown to the witness or its contents disclosed to him or her.
(2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on it, or the interests of justice otherwise require. If a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. This subsection is not applicable to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in s. 90.803(18).
Educational reference. Educational only — not legal advice.
What this rule means in plain English
Section 90.614 sets the foundation for impeachment by prior inconsistent statement: extrinsic evidence is inadmissible unless the witness is first given a chance to explain or deny the statement and the opponent a chance to question — party-opponent admissions are exempt.