In Re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code
210 So. 3d 1231
| Fla. | 2017Background
- The Florida Supreme Court reviewed The Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee’s regular-cycle report on legislative amendments to the Evidence Code enacted since 2013.
- The Legislature enacted three key changes at issue: (1) the “Daubert Amendment” replacing Frye with the Daubert/Fed. R. Evid. 702 standard (ch. 2013-107 §§1-2); (2) the “Same Specialty Amendment” narrowing expert-qualification requirements in medical-malpractice claims (ch. 2013-108 §2); and (3) an amendment to Fla. Stat. §90.803(24) expanding the hearsay exception for statements by elderly/disabled abuse victims (ch. 2014-200 §1).
- The Committee recommended (narrowly) not to adopt the Daubert and Same Specialty legislative changes as procedural rules, and recommended adopting the §90.803(24) change; the Board of Governors approved those recommendations.
- The Court solicited and received extensive written comment and heard oral argument; commentators were deeply divided, especially over Daubert and constitutional concerns.
- Citing “grave constitutional concerns” (jury-trial and access-to-courts issues) and precedent allowing the Court to decline to adopt legislative evidence changes that are procedural and raise constitutional or policy concerns, the Court declined to adopt, to the extent procedural, all three challenged statutory amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Legislature's Position | Committee / Opponents' Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to replace Frye with Daubert/Fed. R. Evid. 702 for expert admissibility | Adopt Daubert (statutory change) | Committee and many commenters urged the Court not to adopt the Daubert amendment as a procedural rule, citing constitutional concerns | Court declined to adopt the Daubert Amendment to the extent it is procedural (left constitutional questions for case/controversy) |
| Whether to require same-specialty (not similar) experts in medical-malpractice (§766.102(5)(a)) | Enact same-specialty requirement and repeal §766.102(14) | Committee and commenters argued it chills access to experts and access to courts; urged non-adoption as procedural | Court declined to adopt the Same Specialty Amendment to the extent procedural, citing similar access/constitutional concerns |
| Whether to expand hearsay exception for elderly/disabled abuse victims (§90.803(24)) | Legislature removed alternative testimonial requirement, making unavailability sufficient | Committee recommended adoption but flagged constitutional issues for testimonial statements in criminal cases | Court declined to adopt the §90.803(24) amendment to the extent procedural because of constitutional concerns (testimonial vs. nontestimonial) |
| Whether the Court should absorb legislative evidence provisions into its rules when they implicate procedural or constitutional issues | Legislature enacted Evidence Code amendments; argued Court should adopt procedural changes | Committee reviewed and recommended selectively; Court must consider separation of powers and constitutional limits | Court reaffirmed its practice: it will adopt legislative Evidence Code changes only to the extent they are procedural and do not raise grave constitutional or rule-making concerns; here it declined adoption for the three amendments as procedural issues implicated constitutional concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishing the general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (adopting a reliability gatekeeping standard under the Federal Rules for expert testimony)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (constitutional limits on admitting testimonial hearsay without prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 782 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2000) (Florida Supreme Court precedent on adopting or declining legislative Evidence Code amendments)
- Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1985) (Florida adoption of Frye standard for scientific evidence)
- State v. Hosty, 944 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2006) (discussing testimonial/nontestimonial hearsay in Florida)
- Joiner (General Elec. Co. v. Joiner), 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (standards for reviewing trial-court rulings on expert admissibility)