JAIME v. STATE (2025)

Affirmed. See Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 283 (Fla. 2003) (“There is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Garcia v. State, 373 So. 3d 1213, 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA) (“This standard of appellate review applies regardless of whether, at trial, the State presented only purely circumstantial evidence of guilt as to the charge crime.”), review denied, No. SC2023-0668, 2023 WL 6389749 (Fla. Sept. 29, 2023); State v. Shearod, 992 So. 2d 900, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“The State met its threshold burden of producing evidence on every element of the crime charged, overcoming the motion for judgment of acquittal and permitting the questions of credibility to be resolved by the jury.”); Scott v. State, 330 So. 3d 562, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (holding there was competent, substantial evidence to “overcome appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal” because the “State put the evidence together like pieces of a puzzle, not by a stacking of inferences”); Godbolt v. State, 319 So. 3d 773, 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“Because the victim did not totally repudiate her pretrial statements—which the trial court determined carried the requisite safeguards of reliability for admission as substantive evidence—we cannot say that the evidence was insufficient to show that a crime was committed at all.”).

PER CURIAM.