With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Freytes-Calderon did not testify at trial, the State failed to prove two elements of the crime: that he [Bryant] threatened to do violence toward Freytes-Calderon and that Freytes-Calderon was in fear of imminent harm. See § 784.011(1), Fla. Stat. (2011). Bryant primarily relies on State v. Von Deck, 607 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1992), and Viveros v. State, 699 So.2d 822, 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), for the proposition that “elements of an offense cannot be established by mere inference.” Von Deck, 607 So.2d at 1389 (citing State v. Dye, 346 So.2d 538, 541 (Fla.1977)). While we do not question that proposition, we find those cases are distinguishable. Von Deck did not provide an explanation of the facts and addressed a different legal issue than the one presented in this case. 607 So. DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); L.R.W. v. State, 848 So.2d 1263, 1265-66

A: holding that evidence was sufficient to establish aggravated assault where appellant was seen pointing and firing a gun at two women
B: holding that evidence was sufficient where there was testimony that appellant was seen threatening the victim and that other people were afraid
C: holding that evidence was sufficient where appellant verbally threatened victim and pointed gun at him and then at a group of people causing everyone to scatter
D: holding evidence sufficient that appellant should have anticipated murder when he knew coconspirator had a gun and appellant stated he first saw the gun on the night of the offense when coconspirator showed it to victim
C.