Cases from cite.case.law:

A. HELMS, v. STATE, 271 So. 3d 1030 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . either did not remember appellant's number or denied giving it to the detective, pursuant to section 90.614 . . . was a prior inconsistent statement; however, a prior inconsistent statement admitted under section 90.614 . . . The trial court relied on section 90.614, Florida Statutes (2017), in admitting into evidence the girlfriend's . . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes, provides in part: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement . . . statement to impeach the witness, as the prosecutor did not lay the proper foundation under section 90.614 . . .

PITTS, v. STATE, 227 So. 3d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . (citation omitted)); § 90.614(2), Fla. . . .

PASHA, v. STATE, 225 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla. . . . Pearce, 880 So.2d at 570 (explaining that defense counsel laid the proper foundation under section 90.614 . . .

WRIGHT, v. STATE, 199 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla. . . .

WRIGHT, v. STATE, 143 So. 3d 995 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla. . . .

LOUIS, Jr. v. STATE, 104 So. 3d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . (citing § 90.614(2), Fla. . . . Stat. (2008)) (explaining the requirement in section 90.614(2) that the witness is first afforded an . . . Here, under section 90.614(2) and Rodriguez, the trial court correctly barred defense counsel from attempting . . .

ELMER, v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 198 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that before extrinsic evidence of the contents of . . . inability to remember making it, extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the statement was made. § 90.614 . . .

K. P. a v. STATE, 90 So. 3d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . inconsistent’ statement, the witness does not ‘distinctly admit making’ the statement under section 90.614 . . . established entitlement to introduce the mother’s extrinsic evidence of the prior statement under section 90.614 . . .

SUAREZ, v. BENIHANA NATIONAL OF FLORIDA CORP., 88 So. 3d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See also § 90.614, Fla. . . .

RODRIGUEZ, v. STATE, 65 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . witness does not “distinctly admit” the prior inconsistent statement within the meaning of section 90.614 . . . Next, the defense satisfied the requirement of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2008) by directing . . . Section 90.614(2) provides in pertinent part: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by . . . inconsistent” statement, the witness does not “distinctly admit making” the statement under section 90.614 . . . being used to refresh recollection; however, "if the prior statement is offered to impeach, section 90.614 . . .

DAVIS, v. STATE, 52 So. 3d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Nor was the officer’s statement admissible to impeach the witness under sections 90.608 and 90.614(2) . . .

PENNSYLVANIA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. INDIANA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 43 So. 3d 182 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . admissible as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the homeowner under section 90.614 . . .

RAMSAMMY, v. STATE, 43 So. 3d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . deny the prior statement” prior to the admission of his hearsay statements as required under section 90.614 . . . State also made no effort to lay a proper predicate for the admission of the statement under section 90.614 . . .

WOODALL, v. STATE, 39 So. 3d 419 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(1) is still admissible for impeachment purposes under section 90.614 . . .

McDANIEL, v. STATE, 24 So. 3d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 90.614, Fla. Stat. (2007); Varas v. . . .

THOMAS, v. STATE, 981 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). ORFINGER, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur. . . .

D. M. L. v. STATE, 976 So. 2d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . . § 90.614(2). . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 961 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . prior inconsistent statement, so long as the proper predicate had been laid as required by section 90.614 . . . See id. at 570 (quoting § 90.614(2)). . . .

F. JENNINGS, v. V. CROSBY,, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (N.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . denied making the prior statements (which would have permitted the entry of the documents under section 90.614 . . . Jennings III, 512 So.2d at 173 (citing § 90.614, Fla. Stat.). . . .

E. P. W. a v. STATE, 902 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . The court overruled the objection and admitted the statement into evidence under section 90.614(1), Florida . . .

L. BLANTON, v. STATE, 880 So. 2d 798 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 90.614 Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

PEARCE, v. STATE, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004)

. . . As provided in section 90.614(2), Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is . . . Under section 90.614(2), extrinsic evidence is admissible when a witness does not “distinctly admit” . . . The record in this case shows that defense counsel laid the proper foundation under section 90.614(2) . . . making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement [was] admissible.” § 90.614 . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 880 So. 2d 730 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See §§ 90.608(1), 90.614; Brumbley v. State, 453 So.2d 381, 384-85 (Fla.1984). . . .

PENDER, v. STATE, 847 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . We conclude that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling was consistent with section 90.614, Florida Statutes . . .

GUTIERREZ, v. STATE, 778 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1997). . . .

MATTHEWS, v. STATE, 772 So. 2d 600 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 90.614(1), “Prior statements of witnesses,” provides: (1) When a witness is examined concerning . . .

WILCOX, v. STATE, 770 So. 2d 733 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Compatible with the requirements of section 90.614, Florida Statutes, the prosecutor showed the document . . .

MBL LIFE ASSURANCE CORP. a a a S. v. SUAREZ, Jr. Sr. Jr., 768 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . § 90.614, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . (2) allows the admission of extrinsic evidence of the “critical testimony.”); see also § 90.614(2), Fla . . . Moreover, even if the defendants did not meet the foundational requirements of section 90.614(2), which . . . See § 90.614(2). See also Thornes v. . . . State, 485 So.2d at 1359 (technical noncompliance with section 90.614 may be excusable, in the interests . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 762 So. 2d 929 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 90.614(2) Fla. Slat. . . .

KIWANIS CLUB OF LITTLE HAVANA, INC. v. KALAFE,, 723 So. 2d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . . § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); see Hernandez v. Charles E. . . .

JONES, v. STATE, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)

. . . See §§ 90.608(1), 90.614(1), 90.801(l)(c), 90.802, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

CHAUDOIN, Jr. v. STATE, 707 So. 2d 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 90.614(2) provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible . . .

PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO. LP, D. v. MOORE, L. Co- J., 702 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Cash-well by proof of a prior inconsistent statement, pursuant to § 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. . . . Section 90.614(2) provides, in pertinent part: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by . . . admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. § 90.614 . . .

J. F. v. STATE, 695 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . It could, however, have been admitted as impeachment evidence under section 90.614. . . .

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. M. LEDFORD L., 691 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . free to point out any such discrepancies through proper impeachment procedures, see §§ 90.608(1) and 90.614 . . .

GUDINAS, v. STATE, 693 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1997)

. . . We also agree with the State that the foundational requirements of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes . . .

MILLS, v. STATE, 681 So. 2d 878 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . must follow to introduce extrinsic evidence of such prior inconsistent statements is found at section 90.614 . . . was still required to lay the proper foundation for the introduction of the detective’s testimony. § 90.614 . . .

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM SUNBELT, INC. v. D. WATKINS B., 675 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Moreover, section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1995) specifically allows extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent . . .

DIETRICH, v. STATE, 673 So. 2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Allowing the evidence in also violated section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1993), prohibiting admission . . .

RODRIGUEZ, Sr. Jr. v. STATE, 664 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . See § 90.614, Fla.Stat. (1993). We conclude that no evidentiary error has been shown. . . .

PUGH, v. STATE, 637 So. 2d 313 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1991), provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement . . . Accordingly, under section 90.614(2), extrinsic evidence of this statement, which is contained in the . . .

REGO v. J. SHEPHARD W., 596 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . . § 90.614, Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .

FERNANDEZ- CARBALLO, v. STATE, 590 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . State, 427 So.2d 326, 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). (2) Moreover, the defendant . . .

BARBER, v. STATE, 576 So. 2d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . The state failed to establish the essential predicate required by section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1987 . . .

L. ANNIS, R. v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, f k a E., 566 So. 2d 273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . not admissible for purposes of impeachment during rebuttal, absent the foundation required by Section 90.614 . . . In the cited cases, the courts held that the Section 90.614(2) predicate was a condition precedent to . . . Consequently, the last sentence of Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes, simply does not apply to such . . .

GORE, v. L. DUGGER,, 763 F. Supp. 1110 (M.D. Fla. 1989)

. . . The trial court barred this testimony pursuant to Florida Evidence Code § 90.614(2) because defense counsel . . . Florida Evidence Code § 90.614(2) requires: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a . . .

L. WISE, v. STATE, 546 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . See §§ 90.614(2), 90.801(2)(a), Pla. Stat. (1985). . . .

KIMBLE, v. STATE, 537 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . See also, § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

C. SNODDERLY, v. STATE, 528 So. 2d 982 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. . . .

F. JENNINGS, v. STATE, 512 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1987)

. . . . § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). . . .

SAYAD, v. ALLEY,, 508 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1985); Hoctor v. . . .

HERNANDEZ B. A. v. CHARLES E. VIRGIN, M. D. P. A. C. III, M. D. A. M. D., 505 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . inconsistent with trial testimony is, with few exceptions, admissible as long as the requirements of section 90.614 . . . Section 90.614(2) provides: (2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is . . .

COBAS- TORRES, v. STATE, 502 So. 2d 67 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . to introduce extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by a prosecution witness, § 90.614 . . .

STATE v. HILL,, 504 So. 2d 407 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Therefore, it would be impossible to comply with the Section 90.614 requirement that before extrinsic . . .

IRONS, v. STATE, 498 So. 2d 958 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . . § 90.614(2). Irons’ conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded for a new trial. . . .

GAMBLE, v. STATE, 492 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . . § 90.608(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983); 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1983). . Myers v. . . .

SAUCIER, v. STATE, 491 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . for impeachment based upon the prior out-of-court statements to Deputy Kahl, as required by section 90.614 . . . argues that the usual predicate for impeachment was not required in view of the provision in section 90.614 . . . objection to the rebuttal testimony in explicit terms of an insufficient predicate, as required by section 90.614 . . . Section 90.614(2) reads: (2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible . . .

L. THORNES, v. STATE, 485 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . The rule enunciated above is embodied in Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1983). . . . prior inconsistent statement does not require the exclusion of the proffered testimony under section 90.614 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 472 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Sisto, 534 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1976); see § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .

REAVES, v. STATE, 458 So. 2d 53 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Section 90.614(2); Florida Statutes (1981), requires that appellant be afforded the opportunity to explain . . .

R. FLEMING, v. STATE, 457 So. 2d 499 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides that extrinsic evidence of a witness’ prior inconsistent . . .

GREEN v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 41 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1984)

. . . Assuming this to be the case, Green contends that the predicate required by Section 90.614, Florida Statutes . . . admitted, the witness must first be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the statement, Section 90.614 . . .

E. SIMMONS, Sr. G. v. BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI, INC., 454 So. 2d 681 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Tolley, 345 So.2d 747, 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); §§ 90.403, 90.609, 90.610, 90.614, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .

J. HOCTOR, a By J. HOCTOR B. J. B. v. K. TUCKER,, 432 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . This is an ancient rule of fairness to witnesses and is the historical basis for section 90.614, Florida . . . objection on this ground as required by the contemporaneous objection rule and any violation of section 90.614 . . .

WRIGHT, v. STATE, 427 So. 2d 326 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . failed to establish any predicate for the statement’s introduction, in direct contravention of Section 90.614 . . . This rule is now codified in Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1979): Prior statements of witnesses.— . . .

McGUIRE, v. STATE, 411 So. 2d 939 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that a prior inconsistent statement is inadmissible . . .

HUTCHINSON a k a v. STATE, 397 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1979) states in pertinent part: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent . . . We think the plain terms of Section 90.614(2) certainly contemplate a more direct reference to the prior . . .

L. STUDSTILL, v. STATE, 394 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1979), which codifies prior Florida law to the effect that before a . . .

NOWLIN, Jr. v. STATE, 346 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1977)

. . . State, 281 So.2d 398 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); see Florida Evidence Code, Section 90.614(2) (effective July . . .