Court Opinion

ID: 9382979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 14:14:35.588032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.765914
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed March 29, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D21-2269
                        Lower Tribunal No. 19-3489
                           ________________

                             Javarius Hendrix,
                                Appellant,

                                     vs.

                        Wal-Mart Stores East, LP,
                               Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark
Blumstein, Judge.

     Chad Barr Law, and Chad A. Barr (Altamonte Springs), for appellant.

      Fasi & DiBello, P.A., and Frantz Destin Jr. and Darin DiBello, for
appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“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.”); Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So. 2d

401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“The determination of relevancy is within the

discretion of the trial court. Where a trial court has weighed probative value

against prejudicial impact before reaching its decision to admit or exclude

evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear

abuse of discretion.”) (citation omitted); Sims v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131, 133

(Fla. 1991) (citing Trees with approval, observing that “[t]he weighing of

relevance versus prejudice or confusion is best performed by the trial judge

who is present and best able to compare the two”).

                                      2