Evidence Center · Article X
The screenshot is not the phone.
Family cases run on messages, photos, and records — which makes Article X of the Evidence Code the everyday rule nobody reads until it bites. Eight short statutes carry the whole doctrine: what counts as an original, when one is required, when a duplicate serves the same, the four grounds that excuse the original, the public-records route, summaries for the voluminous, party admissions, and who decides what. All eight are quoted below, verbatim.
Wired to the law it implements
Retrieved live from the source-locked corpus — never generated.
The three questions, in order
A static map of how the article works — read it with the full sections open. Nothing here walks your facts; that analysis is counsel's. The fuller static path lives on the Decision Paths page, now with each question's section pinned.
- Question 1
Are you proving what a writing, recording, or photograph SAYS?
If the content itself is the point — what the message said, what the photo shows — Article X is in play (§ 90.952). If a witness saw the event independently, their testimony is not a contents question.
- Question 2
Is what you have an original — or a duplicate?
The definitions decide (§ 90.951): for data stored in a computer or phone, an output readable by sight and shown to reflect the data accurately is itself an "original" — and a counterpart that accurately reproduces the original is a "duplicate," which § 90.953 commonly admits to the same extent. The fight is usually the accuracy showing, not the label.
- Question 3
If neither original nor qualifying duplicate — does § 90.954 excuse the original?
The statute lists four grounds, quoted below with what courts commonly ask about each. Which side carries the burden, and whether a ground is made out on your facts, is contested territory — the route-to-counsel point.
The definitions decide first — § 90.951
"Original" and "duplicate" are defined terms, and the computer-data sentence is the one family cases turn on: an output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an original by definition. The label is rarely the fight — the accuracy showing is.
“any printout or other output readable by sight and shown to reflect the data accurately is an "original." (4) "Duplicate" includes: (a) A counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, from the same matrix; by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures; by mechanical or elect”“other equivalent technique that accurately reproduces the original; or (b) An executed carbon copy not intended by the parties to be an original.”The requirement, and when a duplicate serves
“an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording, or photograph.”“duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless: (1) The document or writing is a negotiable instrument as defined in s.”Section 90.953 then lists its own exceptions — the duplicate does NOT serve where the writing is a negotiable-instrument class document, where "a genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original," or where "it is unfair, under the circumstance," to admit it in place of the original. An alteration challenge to a screenshot commonly lands in exactly those clauses — which is why the original device matters.
The four grounds that excuse the original — § 90.954
When no original and no qualifying duplicate is available, the statute lists exactly four grounds on which "other evidence of its contents" may be received. Each card quotes the ground verbatim and lists the facts courts commonly ask about — a gathering checklist, not a conclusion. Whether any ground is established on your facts is the court's call, and preparing it is counsel's work.
Ground 1 — Lost or destroyed
All originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith.Commonly asked
- · Where did each original live (device, account, provider)?
- · When and how was it lost — and what search was made?
- · Who deleted or discarded what, and when, relative to the case?
- · Is there a bad-faith allegation in the room? Deleting evidence mid-case carries risks far beyond this rule.
Ground 2 — Unobtainable by process
An original cannot be obtained in this state by any judicial process or procedure.Commonly asked
- · What process was actually tried — a subpoena (Rule 12.410), non-party production (Rule 12.351)?
- · Is the custodian out of state or out of reach of Florida process (§ 92.605 addresses certain out-of-state business records)?
- · What did the custodian answer, in writing?
Ground 3 — In the other party's control, with notice
put on notice by the pleadings or by written notice from the adverse party that the contents of such original would be subject to proof at the hearing, and such original is not produced at the hearing.Commonly asked
- · Was the original under the other party's control at the relevant time?
- · Where is the WRITTEN notice that its contents would be subject to proof — its date, its wording, how it was served?
- · Was the original produced at the hearing, or not?
Ground 4 — Not related to a controlling issue
not related to a controlling issue.Commonly asked
- · Which issue in the case does the item bear on — and is that issue actually controlling?
- · If it is collateral, other evidence of contents may come in; if it is central, expect the original fight.
The technical-failure honesty.
A file that will not play in the courtroom is not automatically a "lost or destroyed" original — the grounds are about the original's existence and reach, not the courtroom's equipment. Whether any ground covers a playback failure on your facts is a legal question; bring the original AND a tested backup format, and raise the question with counsel before the hearing, not during it.
The public-records route — § 90.955
“may be proved by a copy authenticated as provided in s. 90.902, if otherwise admissible.”Official records prove their contents by an authenticated copy — and if a complying copy cannot be had with reasonable diligence, the statute itself opens the door to other evidence. Two honesty notes for family practice: an ordinary download printed at home is not automatically an authenticated copy (the clerk's certification routes exist for that — see § 92.29 and § 28.2221), and the lawful routes to records custodians live on the Records Desk.
Summaries of the voluminous — the family flagship — § 90.956
Support and equitable-distribution cases run on years of statements, ledgers, and pay records — exactly the "voluminous" material this section exists for. A chart, summary, or calculation can carry the volume, but the statute attaches its own duties, in its own words:
“voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs, a party may present them in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation by calling a qualified witness.”“available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place.”- · Timely written notice of the intent to use a summary, with proof filed with the court.
- · The summary AND the underlying originals or duplicates stay examinable by the other side — the summary is a vehicle, never a substitute for the data.
- · A judge may order the underlying materials produced in court.
The disclosure classes this most often rides on are mapped in the 12.285 crosswalk and the bank & financial records foundation.
Proving contents through the other party — § 90.957
“without accounting for the nonproduction of the original.”If the party the item is offered against has testified to its contents, said them in a deposition, or admitted them in writing, the contents may be proved that way — no original required and no accounting for its absence. In family discovery, requests for admission (Rule 12.370) and deposition testimony are where this section commonly earns its keep.
Who decides what — § 90.958, bench edition
“the question as to whether the preliminary fact exists is for the court to determine.”The statute splits the work: preliminary facts for the court; whether the writing ever existed, which produced item is the original, and whether other evidence correctly reflects the contents, for the trier of fact. Family cases are bench proceedings — the same judge commonly wears both hats — but the split still matters: it decides which questions are threshold rulings and which are weight, and a general magistrate may be the officer hearing it (Rules 12.490–12.491).
The originals census — the habit this page exists to teach
For every item that matters, know where its originals live BEFORE anyone asks. Five places to check, for each item type:
The device itself
The phone, tablet, or computer that holds the thread, the photo roll, the file — the first original. Keep it, keep it charged, and never factory-reset mid-case.
The account
Most platforms have a native export tool (messages, mail, photos, cloud drives). A native export made before anything is deleted preserves both content and context.
The provider
Carriers, banks, platforms, and schools keep their own records on their own retention schedules — the Records Desk maps the lawful routes to them.
The other party
If the original lives in the other side's hands, § 90.954(3)'s notice mechanism exists for exactly that — written notice that its contents will be subject to proof.
Third parties
Employers, medical providers, and others reachable, when the case posture allows, through the subpoena rule (12.410) — a route counsel drives.
Keep the original where it lives: do not delete the thread after screenshotting it, and do not trade the phone in mid-case without preserving its contents. The missing original becomes its own fight — and deleting evidence during a case carries risks well beyond this rule (see the preservation guide). Log what you hold in the Evidence Organizer.
Statutory excerpts are verbatim from the hash-verified corpus; statutory text renders in English as enacted. Whether any item is admissible is a legal question for the court on your facts. Legal information, not legal advice.