TBS v. State (2006)

However, the Third District continued that “a trial court may conclude that certain repairs are so self-evident that the fact-finder could conclude based on life experience that the statutory damage threshold has been met.” Id. (quoting T.B.S. v. State, 935 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

It has been said that “a trial court may conclude ‘that certain repairs are so self-evident that the fact-finder could conclude based on life experience that the statutory damage threshold has been met....’” T.B.S. v. State, 935 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting A.D. v. State, 866 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)); S.P. v. State, 884 So.2d 136, 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Clark v. State, 746 So.2d 1237, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., 336 So.2d 566, 569 (Fla.1976) (stating that a writing used to jog a witness's memory may be admissible on some independent ground); T.B.S. v. State, 935 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (stating the fact-finder can use life experience to find that the statutory damage threshold has been met for self-evident repairs).

Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., 336 So.2d 566, 569 (Fla.1976) (stating that a writing used to jog a witness’s memory may be admissible on some independent ground); T.B.S. v. State, 935 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (stating the fact-finder can use life experience to find that the statutory damage threshold has been met for self-evident repairs).