§ 90.806, Fla. Stat. — Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Declarant
Plain English
When a hearsay statement comes into evidence, the absent declarant’s credibility can be attacked just as if they had testified—and then supported if it’s attacked. You can use the declarant’s inconsistent statements or conduct even though they never had a chance to explain. And if the party stuck with the hearsay calls the declarant, they can examine that person as if on cross-examination.
From the Courtroom
Hearsay does not get a free pass on credibility. If a statement comes in through an exception, you can still impeach the person who made it—prior inconsistent statements, bias, a bad reputation for truthfulness—without the usual requirement of confronting them first. It is one of the most overlooked tools for blunting damaging hearsay: the declarant isn’t in the room, but their credibility is still fair game.
Key Points & Authority
- Impeach the absent declarant. When a hearsay statement is admitted, the declarant’s credibility may be attacked—and, if attacked, supported—by any evidence admissible had the declarant testified. § 90.806(1).
- No confrontation prerequisite. Inconsistent statements or conduct by the declarant are admissible regardless of whether the declarant had an opportunity to deny or explain them. § 90.806(1).
- Call and cross. The party against whom the hearsay was admitted may call the declarant and examine as if on cross-examination. § 90.806(2).
Federal Parallel
Florida § 90.806 mirrors Federal Rule of Evidence 806 (Attacking and Supporting the Declarant’s Credibility). Both let an absent declarant be impeached as if a witness and drop the usual prerequisite of first confronting the declarant with an inconsistent statement. Cross-reference is text-only until the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule Book is built.
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)
90.806 Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant.—
(1) When a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, credibility of the declarant may be attacked and, if attacked, may be supported by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time inconsistent with the declarant’s hearsay statement is admissible, regardless of whether or not the declarant has been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain it.
(2) If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination.
Educational reference. Educational summary of Florida statutory law, not legal advice.
What this rule means in plain English
When a hearsay statement comes into evidence, the absent declarant’s credibility can be attacked just as if they had testified—and then supported if it’s attacked. You can use the declarant’s inconsistent statements or conduct even though they never had a chance to explain. And if the party stuck with the hearsay calls the declarant, they can examine that person as if on cross-examination.