39 So.3d at 553; Ecker, 311 So.2d at 106 (“[A]larm is presumed under the statute if, when a law officer appears, the defendant flees, conceals himself, or refuses to identify himself.”). We find that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that M.C. committed the offense of loitering and prowling. The State clearly proved the first element. It is unusual for a law-abiding person to be walking behind a closed commercial shopping center at 11:30 p.m. and testing to see whether a closed business’s back door would open by pulling on the door handles. All of the businesses in the complex were closed for the evening and the surroun ent was satisfied where “defendant was seen behind shops of a closed plaza at 3:45 in the morning.”); C.H.S., 795 So.2d at 1091 (<HOLDING>); see also Battle v. State, 868 So.2d 587, 589
holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing holding first element was satisfied because it is not usual for lawabiding juveniles to be standing behind a closed walgreens at 230 am holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established holding that it is not holding the connection is an element