Title: in Re: Amendments to Florida. Evidence Code
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC02-240
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: July 11, 2002

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC02-240
____________
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE.
[July 11, 2002]
PER CURIAM.
 We have for consideration the regular-cycle report of The Florida Bar Code
and Rules of Evidence Committee (the committee), concerning recent legislative
changes to the Florida Evidence Code made in chapters 2000-316, sections 1 and
2; 2001-132, section 1; and 2001-221, section 1, Laws of Florida.  See Fla. R. Jud.
Admin. 2.130(c).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
The amendments at issue here are those enacted by the Legislature since the
last amendments to the Evidence Code considered by this Court.  See In re
Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 782 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2000) (adopting
-2-
all legislative amendments to the Evidence Code made since 1996 to the extent they
were procedural, except chapter 98-2, section 1, Laws of Florida).  The committee
recommends that the Court adopt chapters 2000-316, sections 1 and 2; and 2001-
132, section 1, Laws of Florida.  
Chapter 2000-316, section 1, amends section 90.502, Florida Statutes 
(Lawyer-client privilege), Florida Statutes, to provide that a discussion or activity
that is not a meeting for purposes of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, shall not be
construed to waive the attorney-client privilege established under section 90.502,
and to further provide that the new provision shall not be construed to constitute an
exemption to either section 119.07 or section 286.011, Florida Statutes.  Chapter
2000-316, section 2, amends subsection (3) of section 90.612, Florida Statutes
(Mode and order of interrogation and presentation) to instruct the judge to take
special care to protect a witness under age fourteen from questions that are in a
form that cannot reasonably be understood by a person of the age and
understanding of the witness and to restrict the unnecessary repetition of questions.
 Chapter 2001-132, section 1, creates section 90.4026, Florida Statutes (Statements
expressing sympathy; admissibility; definitions) which provides that portions of
statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense
of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an
1.  New paragraph (b) is similar to Federal Rule of Evidence 414, Evidence
of Similar Crimes in Child Molestation Cases, which provides in pertinent part: 
In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of
child molestation, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another
offense or offenses of child molestation is admissible, and may be
considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.
See Fla. S. Jud. Comm., CS for SB 2012 (2001) Staff Analysis 4 (April 18, 2001)
(stating that new paragraph (b) is “similar” to the Rule 414 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence); Fla. H.R. Comm. on Crim. Prev., Correct. & Safety, HB 759 (2001)
Staff Analysis 5 (June 26, 2001) (stating that new paragraph (b) brings section
90.404(2) into “conformity” with Federal Rule of Evidence 414).
-3-
accident and made to the person or to the person’s family shall not be admissible
as evidence in a civil action, but that a statement of fault made as part of or in
addition to such statements, writings, or gestures shall be admissible.   
The committee recommends against adopting chapter 2001-221, section 1,
Laws of Florida, which amends section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (Character
evidence, when admissible; Other crimes, wrongs, or acts).  Among other things,
this session law creates new paragraph (b) which allows for the admission of
evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation when a defendant is
charged with a crime involving child molestation and provides that such evidence
may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.1 
The committee’s recommendations were unanimously approved by the
Board of Governors of The Florida Bar.  The recommendations were published for
-4-
comment in The Florida Bar News.  Two comments were received, both of which
address the recommendation not to adopt chapter 2001-221, section 1. 
Consistent with the committee’s recommendations, we adopt chapters 2000-
316, sections 1 and 2; and 2001-132, section 1 to the extent they are procedural. 
However, after hearing oral argument, and carefully considering the committee’s
recommendation against adopting chapter 2001-221, section 1, as well as the
comments that were filed, we decline to follow this recommendation and also adopt
the amendments to section 90.404(2) to the extent they are procedural.  In the
absence of a true “case and controversy,” we express no opinion on the substance
of the amendments or on the challenges to chapter 2001-221, section 1, that were
raised in these proceedings.  The various amendments are effective on the dates
they became law.   
It is so ordered.
HARDING, WELLS, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which
ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I dissent from the majority's decision to adopt chapter 2001-221, section 1,
2.  Section 90.404(2)(b) provides:
  
(b)1.  In a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a
crime involving child molestation, evidence of the defendant's
commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation is
admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to
which it is relevant.
  2.  For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "child
molestation" means conduct proscribed by s. 794.011 or s. 800.04
when committed against a person 16 years of age or younger.
-5-
which amends section 90.404(2) by creating a paragraph (b).  I would instead
follow the recommendation of The Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence
Committee ("Committee") in this case not to adopt this provision as part of our
rules.  My position is consistent with this Court's recent decision declining to adopt
an amendment to the Evidence Code in accordance with the Committee's
recommendations based on concerns about the substance of that amendment.  See
In re Amendments to Florida Evidence Code, 782 So. 2d 339, 342 (Fla. 2000).
In this case, section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes, allows for the admission
of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation when a defendant
is charged with a crime involving child molestation and provides that such evidence
may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.2  The
majority of the Committee recommended that the Court not adopt the amendment
to section 90.404(2) based upon the inherent conflicts between the new legislation
3.  Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959).
-6-
and sections 90.104(2) (the court should prevent inadmissible evidence from being
suggested to the jury), 90.404(1) (character evidence is inadmissible to prove
person acted in conformity with that character trait), and 90.404(2)(a) (similar fact
evidence is inadmissible when relevant only to prove bad character or propensity).  
The addition of subsection (b) substantially abrogates a portion of the
Williams3 rule, as codified in section 90.404(2)(a), which provides for the
admissibility of relevant similar fact evidence even though the evidence points to the
commission of another crime.  See Bryan v. State, 533 So. 2d 744, 746 (Fla. 1988);
see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 404.9, at 181 (2000 ed.). This
amendment to section 90.404(2) also conflicts with other cases from this Court,
including Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1987), and Saffor v. State, 660 So.
2d 668, 670-71 (Fla. 1995), which expressly address the parameters of the
admission of prior acts of misconduct in cases involving sexual abuse. 
Although the majority places the caveat that the Court adopts these
provisions only "to the extent they are procedural," majority op. at 4, the majority
does not explain what portion of subsection (b) is procedural.  Further, although I
recognize that the majority expresses "no opinion on the substance of the
-7-
amendments," id., adopting this amendment without clarifying what portions are
procedural and what portions are substantive will not assist either the trial courts or
the litigants.  In light of the conflicts between subsection (b) and prior case law
from this Court, and conflicts between subsection (b) and other sections of the
rules of evidence, I would decline to adopt any portion of subsection (b) until the
substantial issues surrounding its enactment are litigated in the context of an actual
case or controversy.  For all these reasons, in accordance with the Committee's
recommendation, I dissent from the adoption of this amendment.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
Original Proceeding - Florida Evidence Code
Vincent W. Howard, Jr., Chair, Code and Rules of Evidence Committee, of
Howard & Reyes, Sanford, Florida; and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director,
The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Nancy A. Daniels, President-elect, and Paula S. Saunders, Assistant Public
Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Florida Public
Defender Association; and David De La Paz, Council Director, Council for Healthy
Communities, Tallahassee, Florida,  on behalf of Representative Gus
Bilirakis,Chair, Committee on Crime Prevention, Corrections & Safety and,
Representative Mike Fasano, Chair, Council for Healthy Communities,  
Responding