With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". floor with suspect cocaine and marijuana. The baggies were approximately one inch by one inch. The parties stipulated that the substances were marijuana and cocaine. Police testified that the manner of packaging indicated the drugs were set up for distribution. At the close of the State’s case, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State had failed to prove the defendant had committed any crime as the police never observed anything illegal in the defendant’s possession. The trial court denied the motion. We find that the evidence presented by the State failed to establish a prima facie case of guilt, see Hodge v. State, 970 So.2d 923, 926-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and thus reverse the judgments of conviction. See Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). Morejon v. State, 633 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA

A: holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo
B: recognizing ruling on motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo on appeal
C: holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo
D: holding that a circuit courts entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo
B.