STATE v. HUNTLEY (2021)

The state appeals an order granting the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.¹ To prove the charged offense of child abuse, the state was required to prove that (1) the defendant committed “[a]n intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to” K.H., and (2) that K.H. was under 18. See §§ 827.01(2), 827.03(1)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2017). On the entirely circumstantial evidence before us as to the commission of the act, we cannot conclude that the defendant committed an intentional act without impermissibly stacking inferences. See generally Graham v. State, 748 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“An impermissible pyramiding of inferences occurs where at least two inferences in regard to the existence of a criminal act must be drawn from the evidence and then stacked to prove the crime charged; in that scenario, it is said that the evidence lacks the conclusive nature to support a conviction.”). In light of Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 2020), we are aware that the jurisprudence regarding inference stacking may evolve, but at this point we are bound to follow the dictates of precedent. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court granted the motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict but without polling the jury. We have jurisdiction because “the order of acquittal was granted after the jury had deliberated and returned a verdict to the trial court on all charges.” See State v. Pickersgill, 284 So. 3d 542, 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), review denied, SC19-2142, 2020 WL 3549917 (Fla. June 30, 2020); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.450.

Per Curiam.

Gross, Ciklin, JJ., and Bell, Carolyn, Associate Judge, concur.