amounted to harmless error, it was unnecessary to address Agatheas’s fundamental error claim. Id. Agatheas now claims that the Fourth District erred in its assessment of the admissibility of the revolver found in the backpack and therefore erred in denying his claims of fundamental error and ineffective assistance of counsel. II. ANALYSIS The issue we first consider is whether the admission of a gun recovered from a backpack that Agatheas had in his possession five years after the murder was erroneous when the gun had no connection to the charged crime. We have previously held that in order for evidence of a firearm to be admissible as relevant in a criminal trial, “the State must show a sufficient link between the weapon and the crime.” Jackson v. State, 25 So.3d 518, 528 (Fla.2009) (<HOLDING>). As the Fifth District recognized in Moore v.
holding that testimony regarding use of pistol was insufficient where it was uncontroverted that pistol was toy gun holding that it was error to admit into evidence a gun purchased by the defendant which was not connected with the charged crimes holding that codefendants purported testimony that defendant did not sell cocaine or handle weapons at codefendants apartment lacked substance because it amounted to little more than his assertion that defendant had no involvement in the charged crimes holding that testimony regarding a little pistol defendant carried was inadmissible where nothing in the record linked the little pistol to the gun used in the crimes charged holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept