MILLS v. STATE (2020)

Affirmed. See Schramm v. State, 374 So. 2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (holding: “A person is an accessory after the fact where he gives an offender any aid, knowing that he committed a felony with the intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial, or punishment”); Melahn v. State, 843 So. 2d 929, 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (observing: “Certain falsehoods told to an officer seeking information, which go beyond merely disavowing or refusing to cooperate with an investigation, may support a conviction for accessory after the fact”) (citations omitted). See also Bowen v. State, 791 So. 2d 44, 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(observing: “As with the element of knowledge, proof of the defendant's intent is often supported only by circumstantial evidence, which must be sufficient to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. In addition, the type of aid given often provides the best circumstantial evidence of intent. That is, the greater the aid and the greater the potential it had to assist the felon, the more likely it was done with the requisite intent”) (citations omitted).

PER CURIAM.