With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals established a three-part test to determine whether expert the Eleventh Circuit has recog nized that “[w]hile scientific training or education may provide possible means to qualify, experience in a field may offer another path to expert status.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1261 (11th Cir.2004). To determine whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert regarding the matters he intends to address, the Eleventh Circuit and other courts of appeal have held that a witness who possesses general knowledge of a subject may qualify as an expert despite lacking specialized training or experience, so long as his testimony would likely assist a trier of fact. See United States v. Hensel, 711 F.2d 1000, 1006 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641, 665 (11th

A: holding that trial court did not err
B: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify
C: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert witness in the area of gang identity and investigation based on his training and experience
D: holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness with an extensive background in arson investigation to testify as an expert in a case involving a shipboard fire even though the majority of his experience concerned fires on land
D.