In re Amendments to the Fla. Evidence Code
Decision Date | 23 May 2019 |
Docket Number | No. SC19-107,SC19-107 |
Citation | 278 So.3d 551 (Mem) |
Parties | IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
The Court, according to its exclusive rulemaking authority pursuant to article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution, adopts chapter 2013-107, sections 1 and 2, Laws of Florida ( Daubert amendments), which amended sections 90.702 (Testimony by experts) and 90.704 (Basis of opinion testimony by experts), Florida Statutes, of the Florida Evidence Code to replace the Frye1 standard for admitting certain expert testimony with the Daubert2 standard, the standard for expert testimony found in Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
In In re Amendments to Florida Evidence Code , 210 So.3d 1231, 1239 (Fla. 2017), at the recommendation of The Florida Bar's Code and Rules of Evidence Committee (Committee), which occurred by a close vote of 16-14, the majority of this Court previously declined to adopt the Daubert amendments, to the extent that they are procedural, solely "due to the constitutional concerns raised" by the Committee members and commenters who opposed the amendments. Without now readdressing the correctness of this Court's ruling in DeLisle v. Crane Co. , 258 So.3d 1219, 1221, 1229 (Fla. 2018), we note that the decision determined that section 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code, section 1 of chapter 2013-107,3 is procedural in nature. DeLisle did not address the amendment to section 90.704 made by section 2 of chapter 2013-107.4 Therefore, the Court has not determined the extent to which that amendment may be procedural.
As noted by In re Amendments to Florida Evidence Code , 210 So.3d at 1236-37, the Daubert amendments were considered by The Florida Bar's Code and Rules of Evidence Committee. The Committee provided majority and minority reports against and in favor of the Court's adoption of the Daubert amendments. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar approved the Committee's recommendation, and extensive comments were received in response to the published recommendation. The Court held oral argument in the case. Because of the extensive briefing and arguments on this issue previously made to the Court, and mindful of the resources of parties, members of The Florida Bar, and the judiciary, we revisit the outcome of the recommendation on the Daubert amendments without requiring the process to be repeated.
We now recede from the Court's prior decision not to adopt the Legislature's Daubert amendments to the Evidence Code and to retain the Frye standard. As Justice Polston has explained, the "grave constitutional concerns" raised by those who oppose the amendments to the Code appear unfounded:
In re Amends. to Fla. Evidence Code , 210 So.3d 1231, 1242-43 (Polston, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). While we find Justice Polston's observations instructive in deciding to now adopt the Legislature's Daubert amendments, we do not decide, in this rules case, the constitutional or other substantive concerns that have been raised about the amendments. Those issues must be left for a proper case or controversy.5
Additionally, as outlined in the Committee minority report, the Daubert amendments remedy deficiencies of the Frye standard. Whereas the Frye standard only applied to expert testimony based on new or novel scientific techniques and general acceptance, Daubert provides that "the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable." Daubert , 509 U.S. at 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786 ( ). Moreover, also as argued in the minority report, the Daubert amendments will create consistency between the state and federal courts with respect to the admissibility of expert testimony and will promote fairness and predictability in the legal system, as well as help lessen forum shopping.
Accordingly, in accordance with this Court's exclusive rule-making authority6 and longstanding practice of adopting provisions of the Florida Evidence Code as they are enacted or amended by the Legislature,7 we adopt the amendments to sections 90.702 and 90.704 of the Florida Evidence Code made by chapter 2013-107, sections 1 and 2. Effective immediately upon the release of this opinion, we adopt the amendments to section 90.702 as procedural rules of evidence and adopt the amendment to section 90.704 to the extent it is procedural.
It is so ordered.
I fully concur in the majority opinion and write separately to address Justice Luck's contentions that: (1) we lack the authority to adopt this rule amendment now, and (2) we should not reconsider whether to codify the Daubert standard into our procedural rules until "we have a proper case or controversy," see dissenting op. at 560, in which to reconsider DeLisle v. Crane Co. , 258 So.3d 1219, 1228-30 (Fla. 2018) ( ).
With respect to Justice Luck's contention that we are only authorized to adopt or amend a rule of court pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140, I respectfully disagree that the majority is not following the multistep process set forth in rule 2.140. As explained in the majority's per curiam opinion, that process was followed here, with the result that the Court has had the benefit of Florida Bar recommendations, oral argument, and extensive public comments, pro and con. All that this Court is doing now is reconsidering its earlier administrative (i.e., non-adjudicative) decision not to adopt the proposed Daubert amendments. Nothing in the text of rule 2.140 prohibits this Court from doing so.
Perhaps more fundamentally, rule 2.140 sets forth the procedure "followed for consideration of rule amendments generally. " Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(a) (emphasis added). Although this is the rule that others are directed to follow when requesting that we adopt or amend one of our rules—and that we generally follow as well—our internal operating rules expressly recognize our inherent constitutional authority to amend our own rules, on our own motion, at any time, providing:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rochkind v. Stevenson
...evaluating expert witness testimony"). One additional state, Florida, adopted Daubert by court order in 2019. In re: Amendments to Fla. Evidence Code, 278 So.3d 551 (Fla. 2019). 8. See id. at 179 n.4 (listing jurisdictions that apply a traditional or modified Frye analysis). 9. See Chesson ......
-
Rochkind v. Stevenson
...evaluating expert witness testimony"). One additional state, Florida, adopted Daubert by court order in 2019. In re: Amendments to Fla. Evidence Code , 278 So.3d 551 (Fla. 2019).8 See id. at 179 n.4, 166 A.3d 183 (listing jurisdictions that apply a traditional or modified Frye analysis).9 S......
-
Hedvall v. State
...In May 2019, the Florida Supreme Court explicitly adopted the Daubert standard for expert testimony. See In Re Amendments to the Fla. Evidence Code, 278 So.3d 551 (Fla. 2019). Although there was some uncertainty as to whether the Daubert standard was applicable at the time of trial, the par......
-
Torrez v. State
...to the facts of this case. Because Daubert is procedural, the law applies retroactively to this case. See In re Amendments to Fla. Evidence Code , 278 So. 3d 551, 554 (Fla. 2019) ; Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder , 137 So. 3d 418, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Additionally, "[u]nder Florida......
-
50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping
...decision not to adopt the Legislature’s Daubert amendments to the Evidence Code” and recognized “the trial court’s role as gatekeeper.” 278 So.3d 551, 552-53 (Fla. 2019) (quoting and following the dissent in In re Amendments to Florida Evidence Code, 210 So.3d 1231, 1242-43 (Fla. 2017)). “T......
-
Trial and evidence
...in the area. Then, on cross-examination, concentrate on the expert’s competence. CASES • In re Amendments to Florida Evidence Code , 278 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2019). Florida Supreme Court adopted chapter 2013-107, sections 1 and 2, Laws of Florida (Daubert amendments), which amended sections 90.......
-
Dui defense
...legal standard to govern the admission of expert testimony in the Florida state courts. [ In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code , 278 So. 3d 551, 552-54 (Fla. 2019).] §16:31 Frye and Daubert Compared As it stands now, expert testimony in both federal court and Florida State courts i......
-
Civil litigation
...the legal standard for the admission of expert testimony in the Florida state courts. [ In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code , 278 So. 3d 551, 552-54 (Fla. 2019).] See §§16:28-16:31 for a further discussion of the admission of expert testimony, Florida Statutes §§90.702 and 90.704 ......
-
Motor vehicle accident and other personal injury cases
...the legal standard for the admission of expert testimony in the Florida state courts. [ In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code , 278 So. 3d 551, 552-54 (Fla. 2019).] See Chapter 16 for a discussion of the admission of expert testimony, Florida Statutes §§90.702 and 90.704 and the app......