HENDRIX v. WAL MART STORES EAST LP (2023)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Javarius HENDRIX, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Appellee.

No. 3D21-2269

Decided: March 29, 2023

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

Chad Barr Law, and Chad A. Barr (Altamonte Springs), for appellant. Fasi & DiBello, P.A., and Frantz Destin Jr. and Darin DiBello, for appellee.

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”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network