thing that it does in Chapter 784. In the context of aggravated battery, this court has held that “great bodily harm” is “ ‘distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm, and as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflieted in simple assault and battery.’” T.W. v. State, 98 So.3d 238, 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also Brown v. State, 86 So.3d 669, 571-72 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Cordon v. State, 126 So.3d 292, 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Smith v. State, 969 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). To establish great bodily harm, “[t]he state ‘must prove more than that the victim suffered some harm.’ ” Smith v. State, 175 So.3d 906, 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting T.W. v. State, 98 So.3d at 243); see also Nguyen v. State, 858 So.2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). ' In this case, there was no medical
holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a deadlyweapon finding because a motor vehicle is not a deadly weapon per se and there was no testimony in the record that defendant operated his vehicle in a manner that was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury holding that illegal use of a weapon is one of the predicate offenses for manslaughter where there is no intent to cause death or great bodily harm holding that there was insufficient evidence that alleged victim made statements to forensic nurseexaminer for purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment in part because there was no evidence regarding alleged victims past experience with medical facilities or medical providers holding where there was no testimony that the victim required medical treatment for her burns or that she had any lasting ill effects or scars  there was insufficient testimony as a matter of law to support a charge of aggravated battery for causing great bodily harm holding that witnesss testimony was sufficient to support the trial courts finding that defendant committed battery that resulted in bodily injury