With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have been a finding that his conduct was the sole cause of the accident, as there was evidence that both the defendant and the other driver operated their vehicles in a manner which contributed to the fatal accident, but could have been an exercise of the jury’s power to pardon the defendant regarding that death. Id. Here, unlike Naumowicz, we are not presented with a situation where the jury, addressing two separate offenses, reached verdicts that are factually inconsistent. Instead, we are presented with a situation where finding Appellant guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon cannot be reconciled with a specific finding that he did not possess a firearm, the only weapon alleged to be involved in the assault. See also Cunningham v. State, 647 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s

A: holding that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant a rear seat passenger of a car for possession of marijuana based on the discovery of two marijuana seeds in the front of the vehicle
B: holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment
C: holding that prior convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana are admissible to impeach defendant
D: holding that jurys failure to find the defendant guilty of possession of marijuana could not be reconciled with a verdict of guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to purchase
D.