TOWER HILL PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JESUS CABRERA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the trial court's admission of store receipts and photocopies of checks as evidence, holding that such documents are sufficiently authenticated when identified by the purchaser and are admissible under Florida law.
Store receipts with distinctive logos identified by the purchaser and photocopies of cancelled checks are admissible evidence when they corroborate the purchaser's testimony regarding purchases.
[1] Store receipts bearing distinctive logos and identified by the purchaser as authentic are sufficiently authenticated and admissible to corroborate the purchaser's testimo…
[2] Photocopies of cancelled checks are admissible as duplicates of originals under Florida Statute section 90.953.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where store receipts have distinctive logos and are identified by the purchaser as the receipts of the actual items purchased at the store by the purchaser, they are sufficiently authenticated and admissible to corroborate the testimony of the purchaser regarding the purchase.”
Court's statement of the rule for authentication of store receipts as evidence.
Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Company appealed a final judgment, challenging the admission of store receipts and photocopies of checks that were offe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Documentary Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant challenges a final judgment, contending that the court erred in admitting store receipts and photocopies of checks into evidence. We affirm, applying the tipsy coachman doctrine.1 Where store *863receipts have distinctive- logos and are identified by the purchaser as the receipts of the actual items purchased at the store by the purchaser, they are sufficiently authenticated and admissible to corroborate the testimony of the purchaser regarding the purchase. See Gosciminski v. State, 132 So.3d 678, 700 (Fla. 2013). Photocopies of cancelled checks are admissible as a duplicate of the original. See § 90.953, Fla. Stat. (2015); Pa. Blue Shield v. Wolfe, 575 So.2d 1361, 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. Moreover, as the documentary evidence was cumulative to the precise facts of the purchases to which the appellee and his wife, the purchasers, testified, any error in the admission of the evidence was harmless. Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So.3d 1251, 1256 (Fla. 2014).
Affirmed,
Warner, Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014)
- Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2013)
- Pennsylvania Blue Shield v. Wolfe, 575 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)