with his express instructions to her. Although a jury is normally free to “draw or refuse to draw inferences from the evidence presented,” Ford v. State, 251 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), a special standard applies when the state attempts to secure a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence: “Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972, 976 (Fla.1977) (citations omitted). This standard is not met here because the State’s evidence does not suggest guilt to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences. See also, Walker v. State, 957 So.2d 560, 577 (Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>). Of course, a strong case could be made that
holding that turnipseed controlled and that the district court did not err in failing to give a rational hypothesis jury instruction regarding circumstantial evidence recognizing that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to demonstrate a defendants guilt holding more generally that a verdict may be sustained based on circumstantial evidence alone if that cireumstantial evidence supports a reasonable inference of guilt holding jury cannot return any verdict except acquittal when evidence is insufficient to corroborate accomplice witness recognizing that in circumstantial evidence cases a judgment of acquittal is appropriate if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt