Deparvine v. State (995 So. 2d 351, 2008)

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on appeal by William James Deparvine from a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained below, we affirm Deparvine’s convictions and sentences.

PROCEEDINGS TO DATE

William James Deparvine appeals his convictions for the first-degree murders of Richard “Rick” Van Dusen (“Rick”) and Karla Van Dusen (“Karla”) and one count of armed carjacking. The State’s theory of the case was that Deparvine responded to the Van Dusens’ attempts to sell a 1971 Chevrolet Cheyenne pickup truck (“truck”) and he subsequently murdered them and took the truck.

GUILT PHASE

According to testimony at trial, the Van Dusens placed an ad in the St. Petersburg Times (“Times”) seeking to sell their truck from February 11, 2003, to March 14, 2003. In March 2003, Rick placed the truck on consignment with auctioneer Stuart Myers, who testified that Rick placed a reserve price of $17,000 on the truck and rejected a bid of $15,000. Unable to sell the truck, the Van Dusens ran another ad from July 8, 2003, to August 8, 2003, asking for $14,500. The Van Dusens ran a final ad in the Times from November 20, 2003, to December 21, 2003, asking for “$13,700 or partial trade for four wheel drive jeep.”

The State presented the testimony of Christopher Coviello, the Van Dusens’ neighbor, who stated that on November 25, 2003, the day before the Van Dusens’ bodies were discovered, he saw the Van Dusens driving away from their house in Tierra Verde, which is approximately twenty minutes southwest of the St. Pe-tersburg area, between 5:15 p.m. and 5:45 p.m. Coviello saw Rick driving the truck by himself and Karla driving a Jeep, also owned by them, by herself and following Rick. The State was able to use the Van Dusens’ cell phone records which indicated the cell towers used to track the Van Dusens’ movement on November 25, 2003. The Van Dusens’ phone records indicated that between the times of 4:45 p.m. and 6:37 p.m., they moved northeast from their home in Tierra Verde through the St. Pe-tersburg area and ended up north of St. Petersburg around the Oldsmar area. Their bodies were discovered on November 26, some 3.4 miles from the last recorded cell tower used by the Van Dusens in Oldsmar.

One of the phone calls Karla made during this time period was to her mother, Billie Ferris, which began at approximately 5:54 p.m. This phone call began by using a cell tower located on Central Avenue in St. Petersburg and lasted approximately thirty-seven minutes, ending with the use of the cell tower in Oldsmar. Over defense counsel’s objections, Ferris testified that during this conversation, when she heard the motor of the car running in the background, she asked Karla whether she was in the car, and Karla responded:

A: I’m following Rick and the guy that bought the truck. He knows where to get the paperwork done tonight.

Q: [State]: Did Karla Van Dusen tell you how the guy was going to pay for the truck that night?

A: She said he’s got cash.

The very next morning, on November 26, the bodies of Rick and Karla were found along a dirt road next to a residence, approximately one mile east of Oldsmar. Rick was shot once in the back of the head. He was found with his wallet and money clip containing eighty-three dollars, two gold rings, a cell phone, and a watch. Karla was shot twice in the head and stabbed twice in the chest. She was found with four gold rings, gold hoop earrings, and a watch. Detective Chuck Sackman testified that he discovered a knife blade and a nine millimeter shell casing under her body.

The Jeep, owned by the Van Dusens, was discovered 1.3 miles away from their bodies at a local business. Detective Sack-man testified that the windshield was cracked and that he recovered a bullet fragment from the dashboard, a shell casing between the passenger front seat and the doorway, a bullet fragment on the front passenger floorboard, a global positioning system (GPS) device and an address book on the front passenger seat floorboard, a black purse on the passenger seat, and two cell phones from the center console. On the ground floor next to the Jeep on the driver’s side was a Florida identification (ID) card belonging to Henry Sullivan. Castings were made from the footprints and tire marks around the Jeep.

Chief forensic print analyst Mary Ellen Holmberg analyzed the prints lifted from the interior and exterior of the Jeep and one lifted from Sullivan’s ID card, but none of them matched Deparvine. Latent print analyst Kimberly Cashwell analyzed the knife blade discovered under Karla’s body, but was not able to lift any prints of value for comparison. Footwear and tire crime scene analyst Lynn Ernst eliminated Deparvine’s shoes as a match with the castings taken from the scene. Ernst also eliminated the Van Dusens’ truck as having made the tire marks around the Jeep.

Blood stains were found throughout the driver and passenger sides of the Jeep. Susannah Ulrey, a laboratory analyst for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, testified that she analyzed five blood samples taken from different points on the steering wheel of the Jeep, and four of them matched Deparvine’s DNA, including one mixture blood stain containing Depar-vine’s and Rick’s DNA. Amber Moss, a supervisor of forensic case work at Orchid-Cellmark, a private laboratory, testified that the two blood samples she analyzed, which were taken from different locations on the steering wheel of the Jeep, matched Deparvine, thus totaling six different blood stains on the steering wheel that were linked to Deparvine’s DNA. Numerous other blood samples were taken from inside the Jeep and the Van Dusens’ clothing, but none of those matched Depar-vine.

On November 27, 2003, Professor Ray-monda Letrice Burgman, who lived near Deparvine’s apartment complex, discovered the 1971 Chevrolet truck parked there, and called the police. Detective Charles Keene secured and executed a search warrant for Deparvine’s apartment on December 24, 2003. He discovered a document indicating a 1971 Chevy Cheyenne pickup truck for sale and a handwritten note with a phone number and a list of fourteen questions regarding the truck. One of the documents indicated that the Van Dusens’ truck was being sold for $18,900. Detective Keene also found an affidavit, dated December 12, 2003, wherein Deparvine was requesting a vehicle title application for the truck, an insurance policy for the truck in Deparvine’s name, and old truck repair documents indicating Rick’s name. A notarized bill of sale from Rick to De-parvine, dated November 25, 2003, was also discovered indicating a purchase price of $6,500. Susan A. Kienker, who notarized this bill of sale, later testified that Rick, whom she knew personally, asked her to notarize the bill of sale on November 25, 2003, and handwriting expert Don Quinn confirmed Rick’s handwriting on the bill of sale as authentic. No guns were discovered at Deparvine’s apartment.

George Harrington testified that he came into contact with Deparvine in August 2003, when Harrington was seeking to sell his 1996 F-150 pickup truck for approximately $7,800. Harrington testified that Deparvine wanted to purchase the truck, but before he did, he asked to take the truck to Oldsmar where his mechanic friend would inspect it. Deparvine indicated that he would pay for the truck in cash, which he kept at his friend’s house in Oldsmar. Deparvine gave Harrington a blank bill of sale and told him to have it notarized, which he did, but the sale was never completed, and Harrington never met or spoke with Deparvine’s Oldsmar friend.

Deparvine testified in his own defense and stated that prior to November 2003, he was looking to purchase a pickup truck during a six-month period. He said that he saw the Van Dusens’ February, July, and November ads and inquired about the truck in February, July, September, and November. Deparvine testified that on the Sunday morning of November 23, 2003, he spoke with Rick, who gave him directions to his house in Tierra Verde. When Deparvine arrived, Rick offered to let Deparvine test drive the truck. Depar-vine drove the truck and Rick came along, but within three-quarters of a mile, the truck ran out of gas and the two men abandoned the truck on the side of the road and walked back to the Van Dusen home. At the home, Rick picked up a can of gas, which already contained approximately three-quarters of a gallon of gas, and the two men rode in the Jeep back to the truck with Rick driving. Rick poured gas in the gas tank, but the truck did not start. They decided to “prime the carburetor,” which Deparvine testified involves pulling the air cleaner assembly off the carburetor, and pouring gas into the carburetor while another person turns the key in the ignition. Rick turned the key in the ignition while Deparvine primed the carburetor. During this process, Depar-vine states that he opened a wound and scab under his right index finger, which originated as a cut he received at work. After they were able to start the truck, Rick drove the truck to the gas station while Deparvine followed driving the Jeep. Rick then put gas in the truck and the two drove back to the Van Dusens’ home, with Deparvine still driving the Jeep. Deparvine testified that he stayed at the home for approximately two hours during which Rick showed him an original title to the truck. Deparvine told Rick that he only had $6,500 in cash to pay for the truck, which Rick accepted because he just wanted to get rid of the truck. Rick was able to show Deparvine that there were no liens on the truck; and Deparvine then paid $1,500 in cash as a deposit, for which Rick wrote out a receipt. Deparvine gave Rick a blank bill of sale for Rick to complete and they agreed that the Van Dusens would deliver the truck to Deparvine’s apartment complex in central St. Peters-burg on Tuesday, November 25, 2003, after 5 p.m.

Deparvine testified that on November 25, 2003, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Rick arrived at the apartment complex driving the truck and Karla followed driving the Jeep. Deparvine told the Van Dusens to drive around to the back parking lot of the complex to complete the sale. Deparvine then noticed a person driving a red vintage truck that was similar to the 1971 Chevrolet and seemed to be with the Van Dusens. Deparvine described the driver of the similar truck as a white male in his mid-fifties with a salt-and-pepper-colored beard, a receding hairline, and wearing sunglasses. On cross-examination, Deparvine admitted that this description was consistent with his own appearance. Once at the back parking lot, Rick exited his truck and entered the passenger side of the Jeep. De-parvine entered the Jeep and sat in the backseat behind Karla. Deparvine then paid the $5,000 remaining balance of the sales price in cash and Rick gave him a notarized bill of sale indicating a purchase price of $6,500. According to Deparvine, Rick had not been able to find the title but agreed to send it to Deparvine after Thanksgiving. After Deparvine exited the Jeep, Rick entered the similar red vintage truck Deparvine had seen and the two vehicles left, with Karla following the red truck in the Jeep. Deparvine testified that after the Van Dusens left, he did not leave the vicinity of his apartment complex. He denied killing the Van Dusens.

When asked how he obtained funds to purchase the truck, Deparvine testified that he sold a Rolex watch that he inherited while he was in prison from a terminally ill inmate named Bill Jamison, whom he had befriended. Deparvine testified that because the Rolex was not on his prison personal property list, he had to smuggle the watch outside of the correctional facility by hiding it in the ground in the visitors park. Joseph Fish, a customer service manager with the St. Petersburg Times, testified that Deparvine placed a one-day advertisement on October 26, 2003, to sell a Presidential Rolex watch. Deparvine testified that he sold the watch for $7,000 to the first people that came by his house, who were “a couple of Hispanic guys.” Deparvine could not give any other description of these buyers. Instead of depositing the funds from the sale in his bank account, Deparvine testified that he kept the cash at his apartment. The highest balance ever recorded in Deparvine’s bank account between June 27, 2003, and December 31, 2003, was $826.21.

The defense also presented testimony from Martha Baker, who lived behind the Van Dusens and shared the fence to the back end of their respective homes. Baker testified that on the night of November 25, 2003, between 7:15 p.m. and 7:50 p.m., while she was entertaining guests, she heard Karla’s voice coming from the Van Dusen home.

Deparvine’s cell phone records revealed that he received a call on the night of November 25, 2003, from his ex-wife at 8:57 p.m., but because the call went unanswered, the cell phone did not record any cell tower. Nevertheless, Deparvine received a text message that night at 9:13 p.m., which used a tower on Central Avenue in St. Petersburg. At 5:35 a.m. on November 26, 2003, Deparvine’s phone records indicate that he checked his voice mail using the same St. Petersburg tower.

On August 3, 2005, a jury found Depar-vine guilty of both counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed carjacking.

PENALTY PHASE

During the penalty phase, the State presented the testimony of Officer Richard Gordon, who testified that on April 28, 2003, Deparvine was on conditional release for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and carrying a concealed weapon. The State then presented five witnesses as victim-impact testimony: (1) Michelle Kroger, Rick’s youngest daughter; (2) Jay Meyers, Karla’s son; (3) Christine Crawford, who read a statement prepared by Rene Koppeny, Rick’s daughter; (4) Mor-ene Cancelino, Rick’s sister, who read a statement prepared by Rick’s other sister, Jacqueline Bonn; and (5) Billie Ferris, Karla’s mother.

The defense presented three witnesses. Sara Flynn, a mitigation specialist, testified about Deparvine’s background. Flynn testified that her investigation did not reveal any examples of happy or loving times during Deparvine’s childhood. Flynn testified about Deparvine’s estrangement from siblings, nieces, nephews, and parents. His parents were very strict and Deparvine received no affection or words of encouragement from them. Deparvine married his teenage girlfriend, who had become pregnant, and worked hard to put himself through college and law school. On cross-examination, Flynn testified that there had not been any history of sexual or physical abuse.

Kelly Cousineau and Katina Holthus, Deparvine’s daughters, testified. Cousi-neau testified that Deparvine was a loving, affectionate, and involved father. She also testified that she had not seen Deparvine for fifteen years. Holthus has kept in better contact with Deparvine, testifying that she had visited him several times over the years while he was in prison. Holthus also testified that Deparvine was a loving and involved father.

On August 4, 2005, the jury recommended that Deparvine be sentenced to death by a vote of eight to four on both murder counts. A Spencer hearing was held on November 22, 2005, wherein two witnesses testified. Dr. Eric Rosen, a psychologist, testified that Deparvine showed “elevated scales for depression and also for psychopathic deviance,” and that although he does not suffer from a “full personality disorder,” he suffers from personality disorder traits and was diagnosed as having dysthymic mood disorder, which is a type of depression. Nevertheless, Dr. Rosen testified that Deparvine was above average in intellect and that his personality disorder shaped the choices he made, but did not limit his ability to make choices. Kourtney Deparvine, Deparvine’s youngest daughter, testified similarly to her two sisters during the penalty phase.

On January 9, 2006, the trial court sentenced Deparvine to death, finding four aggravating factors and giving them all great weight. The trial court found that the murders were (1) cold, calculated and premeditated (“CCP”); (2) committed for pecuniary gain; (3) committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and under sentence of imprisonment, or placed on community control, or on felony probation; and (4) committed by one previously convicted of another capital felony. The trial court gave little weight to Deparvine’s mitigating circumstances, finding that Depar-vine: (1) suffered from serious emotional deprivation as a child because of familial dysfunction; (2) suffered from inability to form and maintain close relationships with others; (3) suffered from estrangement from some family members; (4) persevered after marrying his teenage girlfriend, who had become pregnant, and worked hard to put himself through college and law school; and (5) was once a true family man and his children grieve at the predicament they found him in.

GUILT-PHASE CHALLENGES

I. HEARSAY

Deparvine challenges his convictions on several grounds. First, Deparvine argues that the trial court erred in admitting Karla’s mother’s testimony regarding the hearsay statements made by Karla about where she was and who she was with during the telephone conversation that ended in Oldsmar. The State contended and the trial court ruled that these statements were admissible under the statutory spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule, which does not require a startling or exciting event as a prerequisite to admission. Deparvine objected at trial and now on appeal, and cites Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943 (Fla.2004), for the proposition that a startling event is a necessary predicate for allowing a statement under the spontaneous statement exception. See id. at 951 (“Both the excited utterance and the spontaneous statement exceptions require the declarant to be laboring under the influence of a startling event at the time that the statement is made.”). In Hutchinson, this Court held that although it was error to introduce hearsay statements made over a telephone conversation as excited utterances, the error was harmless. Id. at 952. We conclude that certain dicta in Hutchinson erroneously blurred the distinctions between the spontaneous statement and excited utterance exceptions to the rule barring admission of hearsay statements. In order to resolve the issue presented by Deparvine we find it necessary to look at the history and development of the spontaneous statement and excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule in order to clarify their scope and meaning.

Res Gestae

While Florida generally bars the admission in evidence of out-of-court statements made by someone else to a witness as impermissible hearsay, we have also recognized exceptions to this rule. Prior to July 1, 1979, the effective date of Florida’s evidence code in criminal cases, the spontaneous statement and excited utterance exceptions were parts of a group of exceptions subsumed under the term “res ges-tae.” State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660, 661 (Fla.1988) (citing State v. Johnson, 382 So.2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); 1 Frank T. Read, Read’s Florida Evidence 693 (1987)). “The term res gestae seems to have come into common usage in discussions of admissibility of statements accompanying material acts or situations in the early 1800s.” 2 McCormick on Evidence § 268, at 245 (Kenneth S. Broun et al. eds., 6th ed.2006) [hereinafter McCormick ]. As one Florida district court has explained:

‘Res Gestae,’ is a Latin term translated literally as ‘things done’; and it embraces the circumstances, facts, and declarations which are incident to the main fact or transaction and which are necessary to demonstrate its character. It also includes words, declarations, and acts so closely connected with a main fact in issue as to constitute a part of the transaction.

Washington v. State, 118 So.2d 650, 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960) (citing Underhill’s Criminal Evidence § 266, at 664 (5th ed.)).

Differing views of the policy reasons for the res gestae exception have been expressed. In 1881, Professor James Bradley Thayer reviewed the cases discussing res gestae and concluded that this was an exception based on the contemporaneousness of statements. James Bradley Thayer, Bedingfield’s Case. — Declarations as a Part of the Res Gesta, 15 Am. L.Rev. 71, 83 (1881). He interpreted the law as creating an exception for statements “made by those present when a thing took place, made about it, and importing what is present at the very time.” Id. On the other hand, another legal scholar, Wigmore, saw as the basis for the exception, not the contemporaneousness of the exclamation, but rather the “nervous excitement” produced by “certain external circumstances of physical shock, ... which stills the reflective faculties and removes their control, so that the utterance which then occurs is a spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the external shock.” 6 Wig-more, supra note 7, § 1747, at 135. Although courts initially accepted Professor Wigmore’s view of the “exciting event” requirement of res gestae evidence, courts eventually began to also admit contemporaneous statements under the res gestae label without requiring the statements’ association with an exciting or startling event. 2 McCormick, supra, § 271, at 251-52.

The revival of this broader theory of the res gestae exception has been credited to the commentary of Edmund Morgan, who noted in 1922:

A statement by a person as to external events then and there being perceived by his senses is worthy of credence for two reasons. First, it is in essence a declaration of a presently existing state of mind, for it is nothing more than an assertion of his presently existing sense impressions. As such it has the quality of spontaneity.... Second, since the statement is contemporaneous with the event, it is made at the place of the event. Consequently the event is open to perception by the senses of the person to whom the declaration is made and by whom it is usually reported on the witness stand. The witness is subject to cross-examination concerning that event as well as the fact and content of the utterance, so that the extra-judicial statement does not depend solely upon the credit of the declarant.

Edmund M. Morgan, A Suggested Classification of Utterances Admissible as Res Gestae, 31 Yale L.J. 229, 236 (1922) [hereinafter Morgan, Suggested Classification ] (footnotes omitted); see also Booth v. State, 306 Md. 313, 508 A.2d 976, 979 (1986). Morgan continued, “The declaration is ‘instinctive, rather than deliberative — in short, the reflex product of immediate sensual impressions, unaided by retrospective mental action. These are the indicia of verity which the law accepts as a substitute for the usual requirements of an oath and opportunity for cross-examination.’ ” Morgan, Res Gestae, supra note 8, at 96 (quoting III. Central R.R. Co. v. Lowery, 184 Ala. 443, 63 So. 952, 953 (1913)).

Later, the committee drafting the Model Code of Evidence, led by Edmund Morgan, included both an exception for an excited utterance and a separate exception for present sense impression in the tentative drafts proposed to the American Law Institute (ALI). Douglas D. McFarland, Present Sense Impressions Cannot Live in the Past, 28 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. 907, 909 (2001). The ALI eventually accepted both:

Evidence of a hearsay statement is admissible if the judge finds that the hearsay statement was made

(a) while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition which the statement narrates or describes or explains, or immediately thereafter; or

(b) while the declarant was under the stress of a nervous excitement caused by his perception of the event or condition which the statement narrates or describes or explains.

Id. (citing Model Code of Evidence Rule 512 (1942)).

The only mention of the rule during the three years the ALI debated the proposed evidence code was the following statement of Professor Morgan presenting the rule: “Subdivision (b) is accepted now almost everywhere. Subdivision (a) is not accepted in a number of jurisdictions. Subdivision (a) is what Mr. Thayer thought represented the law with reference to this matter; Subdivision (b) is Mr. Wigmore’s view of it; we adopt both.”

Id. at 909 n. 15 (citing 18 A.L.I. Proc. 165 (1941)).

In 1953, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, which was again led by Morgan, proposed the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Id. at 911.

In the area of spontaneous statements, the drafters crafted a narrower present sense impression, a similar excited utterance, and a broad new statement of recent perception. These three exceptions were placed into the same rule:

Contemporaneous Statements and Statements Admissible on Ground of Necessity Generally. A statement (a) which the judge finds was made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition which the statement narrates, describes or explains, or (b) which the judge finds was made while the declarant was under the stress of a nervous excitement caused by such perception, or (c) if the declarant is unavailable as a witness, a statement narrating, describing or explaining an event or condition which the judge finds was made by the declarant at a time when the matter had been recently perceived by him and while his recollection was clear, and was made in good faith prior to the commencement of the action.

Id. (citing Unif. R. Evid. 63(4) (1953)). “The drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence, following Thayer and Morgan instead of Wigmore, included the present sense impression as the first-listed exception to the hearsay rule, rule 803(1).” Id. at 912. Thereafter, in 1975, Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence, which contained a separate and specific exception for present sense impressions from the hearsay rule, and defined it as, “A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declar-ant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” Fed.R.Evid. 803(1).

Florida Evidence Law

A review of Florida’s case law reveals that Professor Thayer’s broad view of the res gestae exception was applied in Florida as early as 1942. In Tampa Electric Co. v. Getrost, 151 Fla. 558, 10 So.2d 83 (1942), an assistant to an electric lineman was permitted to testify that the lineman told him that he had called the plant and ordered the power in the line cut off. Id. at 84. The lineman had proceeded to work on the wire and was electrocuted. Id. This Court held the conversation was admissible, observing that “the statement was not infected with the vices which make such declarations usually inadmissible. At the time it was uttered there was no occasion for it to have resulted from reflection or premeditation, nor was there motive to make it self-serving.” Id. at 85.

Nevertheless, Wigmore’s theory requiring a startling event in order for the res gestae exception to be invoked was more often referenced in Florida’s case law before the adoption of the evidence code. Declarations were found admissible under the res gestae label if the declarations were the natural emanations or outgrowths of the act or occurrence in litigation, although not precisely concurrent in point of time, if they were yet voluntarily and spontaneously made so nearly contemporaneous as to be in the presence of the transaction which they illustrate and explain, and were made under such circumstances as necessarily to exclude the idea of design or deliberation.

State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 1967) (quoting Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533, 98 So. 605, 608 (1923), wherein a declaration emanating two minutes after a shooting was admitted); see also Johnson v. State, 314 So.2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (applying a four-pronged test: the statement must be the natural emanation or outgrowth of the act or occurrence in litigation, made contemporaneously with the act of violence, made voluntarily and spontaneously, and made without any indication of reflection or premeditation); Elmore v. State, 291 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (applying a four-pronged test: the statement must be spontaneous, made by one who witnessed the act concerning which the statement was made, made at the scene of the homicide, made in the sight or hearing of the accused or victim, and made about a relevant material issue in the case), overruled on other grounds by Martin v. State, 342 So.2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1977). To be sure, in Florida “the act or occurrence in litigation” referred to a violent act, an exciting event that produced a declaration out of nervous excitement. See, e.g., Johnson, 314 So.2d at 251 (affirming admission of statements that emanated fifteen to thirty minutes after a stabbing); Lawrence v. State, 294 So.2d 371, 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (“Res gestae refers to statements made immediately before, or immediately after the commission of a crime, by the accused, victim, or a bystander, as a spontaneous reaction or utterance stimulated by the excitement of the occasion.” (quoting Charles Torcía, Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 297, at 60 (13th ed.1972))); Elmore, 291 So.2d at 619 (holding statement of an unidentified bystander, which was made at the murder scene and within seconds of the shooting, was admissible), overruled on other grounds by Martin, 342 So.2d at 503; Washington, 118 So.2d at 653 (“Statements or acts of the injured person made or done at a time immediately prior to the offense or so near to it as to preclude the idea of forethought, and tending to elucidate a main fact in issue may be admissible as part of the res gestae.” (citing 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 672, at 1063)). In Johnson, the First District explained, “The rationale for permitting testimony relating to spontaneous exclamations is that ‘such utterances spring spontaneously and instinctively from the stress or pain or excitement caused by the act of violence and are made so soon after the act as to preclude the idea of deliberation, fabrication or design.’ ” 314 So.2d at 251 (quoting 4 A.L.R.3d 149,154).

Florida’s Evidence Code

When Florida adopted the evidence code in 1979, the Legislature did not use the term “res gestae,” but instead broke down the “res gestae” group into various components. See Jano, 524 So.2d at 661; see also State v. Adams, 683 So.2d 517, 520-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Florida’s spontaneous statement and excited utterance exceptions now provide:

The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT. — A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE. — A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

§ 90.803(l)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Commenting specifically on Florida’s spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule, Professor Ehrhardt has explained:

Hearsay statements are admissible under section 90.803(1) when they are spontaneous and describe or explain an event, and if they are made while the person is perceiving the event, or immediately thereafter. There must be a substantial contemporaneity between the event and the out-of-court statement. The spontaneity of the statement negatives the likelihood of conscious misrepresentation by the declarant and provides the necessary circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness to justify the introduction of the evidence. If more than a “slight lapse of time” has occurred between the event and the statement, the spontaneity is lacking. There is not a requirement for an exciting or startling event or condition for statements to be admitted under section 90.803(1); neither the language of the exception or the policy supporting it require the startling event or condition.

1 Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida, Evidence § 803.1, at 841-4-2 (2007 ed.) [hereinafter Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence ] (footnotes omitted). Quoting Professor Ehrhardt, this Court has noted that the two exceptions, though they often overlap, differ mainly in the amount of time that may elapse between the event and the statement describing the event. Jano, 524 So.2d at 661-62 (quoting 1 Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.2, at 473-74 (2d ed.1984)).

The Law Revision Council’s Notes to section 90.803 state that both the spontaneous statement and excited utterance exceptions “proceed upon a theory that under appropriate circumstances a hearsay statement may possess circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness sufficient to justify introduction of the evidence at the trial even though the declarant may be available.” 6C Fla. Stat. Ann. 268 (West Publishing Co.1979) (Law Revision Council note — 1976). A spontaneous statement is trustworthy because “the substantial contemporaneity of event and statement negative the likelihood of deliberate or conscious misinterpretation.” Id. This language corresponds to that used by the Advisory Committee Note in the present sense impression exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) when discussing the underlying theory of the present sense impression. See Fed.R.Evid. 803(1) advisory committee’s note. It appears that the only difference between the federal and Florida rules for admission of spontaneous statements of present sense impressions of an event is the added provision in the Florida rule that evidence is not admissible, even though it meets the other requirements of section 90.803(1), when the “statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.” § 90.803(1), Fla. Stat. “This provision enables the judge to bar the admission of statements that lack sufficient reliability. The drafters were particularly concerned with statements by unidentified bystanders. The court should weigh any corroborating evidence together with all other factors in making this determination.” Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, supra, § 803.1, at 843 (footnote omitted); see, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Jenkins, 739 So.2d 171, 171-72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Thus, it appears that Florida has adopted the spontaneous statement exception as a separate and distinct exception to the hearsay rule just as it was adopted by the federal rules under the present sense impression exception. Further, it appears the present sense impression was adopted as a restatement of the earlier res gestae exception which does not require an exciting or nervous stimulus as a condition for admission. Under this view, the main policy underlying the exception is a belief in reliability based upon the contemporane-ousness of the report of an event. Morgan, Res Gestae, supra note 6, at 96. Hence, Florida’s spontaneous statement exception is consistent with Professor Thayer’s early view that declarations are admissible when “made by those present when a thing took place, made about it, and importing what is present at the very time.” Thayer, supra, at 83.

Case Law Under The Evidence Code

Since the adoption of the evidence code, this Court has stated:

A spontaneous statement must be made “at the time of, or immediately following, the declarant’s observation of the event or condition described.” J.M. v. State, 665 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). This exception requires that “the statement must be made without the declarant first engaging in reflective thought.” Id. The statements admitted under section 90.803(1) are limited to statements which “describe or explain” an event. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.1, at 772 (2005 ed.).

Ibar v. State, 938 So.2d 451, 467 (Fla.2006). Other cases, however, have suggested a continuing requirement of a startling event. As noted, in Hutchinson, this Court stated, “Both the excited utterance and the spontaneous statement exceptions require the declarant to be laboring under the influence of a startling event at the time that the statement is made.” 882 So.2d at 951. In Lyles v. State, 412 So.2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the Second District held, “In order for the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule to be applicable, there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting.” Id. at 460. In State v. Skolar, 692 So.2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the Fifth District held a 911 call inadmissible because it was “not made as the result of a startling or stressful event, and it therefore cannot qualify under § 90.803 as either a spontaneous statement or an excited utterance.” Id. at 311. However, because we now conclude that this view requiring a startling event in order for the spontaneous exception to apply is contrary to the underlying principles embodied in section 90.803(1), we now reject this view.

This Case

We must now determine how the spontaneous statement exception as defined above should be applied here. It appears that Florida courts have not had occasion to decide a factual issue like the one this case presents. “The relative infrequence of such cases results from the fact that unexciting events do not often give rise to statements that later become relevant in litigation.” 2 McCormick, supra, § 271, at 252. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Florida courts have made clear in both pre- and post-evidence code cases that a narrative of past events cannot qualify as spontaneous statements or excited utterances. See, e.g., Green v. State, 93 Fla. 1076, 113 So. 121, 123 (1927); Mariano v. State, 933 So.2d 111, 116-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Charlot v. State, 679 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

In Deparvine’s case, Karla’s mother testified that she heard the sound of the car motor running and asked Karla whether she was in the car. Ferris’s testimony indicates that Karla immediately responded: “I’m following Rick and the guy that bought the truck. He knows where to get the paperwork done tonight.” We agree with the State that the first statement does not narrate or refer to a past event. Instead, it describes or explains a contemporaneous event, i.e., Karla’s then location and status, as she perceived it. As Karla perceived it, she was driving and following Rick and the guy who bought the truck. Indeed, even defense counsel conceded during oral argument that the implication asserted in the statement that Karla was driving and that she was following Rick would have been admissible under the contemporaneous statement exception.

Deparvine contends, however, that Karla’s statement “and the guy that bought the truck” is a statement of identification, which indicates reflective thought. However, the fact that Karla explained her contemporaneous status in terms of the presence of her husband and the other person riding in the truck, whose identities were known from past experiences, does not lessen the spontaneity or reliability based thereon. We conclude that any reflection on identity, if it could even be called reflection, is not the type of reflection that the rule would limit. Of course there should be a concern with reflection on facts indicating a lapse of time wherein the declarant had the opportunity to reflect on a past event or condition perceived. This may even encompass the exclusion of a declaration on identity where the facts indicate that the declarant was referring to a past event and had the opportunity to reflect on who the person was in that event. However, in Depar-vine’s case, Ferris’s testimony indicates that Karla simply and spontaneously blurted out that she was then “following Rick and the guy that bought the truck” as a contemporaneous report and description of her present circumstances.

Indeed, other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue have admitted hearsay statements of identification under the exception for present sense impressions. See, e.g., United States v. Hawkins, 59 F.3d 723, 730 (8th Cir.1995) (admitting as present sense impression a 911 call describing that “my husband just pulled a gun out on me”), rev’d on other grounds, 516 U.S. 1168, 116 S.Ct. 1257, 134 L.Ed.2d 206 (1996); United States v. Accetturo, 966 F.2d 631, 633 & n. 3 (11th Cir.1992) (admitting statement identifying extortionist, “That’s Tony,” made to police agents who had gone with declarant to airport to stage an undercover operation); United States v. Delaplane, 778 F.2d 570, 574 (10th Cir. 1985) (allowing “Michael’s back” as a present sense impression); State v. Flesher, 286 N.W.2d 215, 216, 218 (Iowa 1979) (allowing as a present sense impression, “It’s Joan”).

We find none of the cases Deparvine cites in support for his proposition deal with a spontaneous statement of identification. Instead, they deal with statements regarding past and future events that were based upon information the declarant had reflected upon and processed. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in introducing Karla’s statement that she was “following Rick and the guy that bought the truck” as part of a contemporaneous statement admissible under the spontaneous statement exception in the evidence code.

However, we conclude the other statements, “He knows where to get the paperwork done tonight” and “[h]e’s got cash,” are not descriptive or explanatory of the current conditions Karla was perceiving. Although Ferris’s testimony indicates that these statements may have been uttered contemporaneously with Karla’s report, those statements fail to describe or explain her present perceptions and thus fail to qualify as spontaneous statements. Both of these statements contain historical information that Karla learned at some earlier time and was simply now recounting to her mother. Neither is a description of a contemporaneous event or observation. It was therefore error for the trial court to admit these statements over counsel’s timely objections.

Harmless Error

To justify affirmance of a conviction or sentence despite error at trial, the State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt on appeal that the error did not contribute to the jury’s verdict. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). If a reviewing court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict, then the error is by definition harmful. Id. at 1139. In this case we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of the statements, “He knows where to get the paperwork done tonight” and “He’s got cash,” which immediately followed the statements we have concluded were properly admitted, did not contribute to Deparvine’s convictions.

Ferris testified that Karla told her over the phone that she was “following Rick and the guy that bought the truck.” This statement, which we have already held was properly admitted, was especially damaging to Deparvine because it placed him with the victims traveling north from St. Petersburg to Oldsmar on the evening in question and it directly contradicted De-parvine’s testimony that he did not travel with the victims after he purchased the truck. In comparison to this evidence, the erroneously admitted statements add very little, if anything, to the case for the prosecution. In fact, the objections at trial focused on the first statement placing the victims with the buyer of the truck. There was no attempt by defense counsel to parse the statements in terms of their admissibility.

Indeed, at oral argument, appellate counsel acknowledged that although the State may have referenced the other statements, the “key to the whole thing” and the “main harm” was on Karla’s statement placing Deparvine with the victims. As noted above, the record reflects that the State’s primary focus in relying on this evidence was on Karla’s statement that she was following Rick and the truck’s buyer, hence identifying the buyer as being with them at a critical time and location in relationship to their deaths. Thus, the major benefit to the State’s case and the damage to the defense arose from the properly admitted evidence. The statement “[h]e knows where to get the paperwork done tonight” is unimportant insofar as proof of the crimes being charged. Furthermore, the statement “[h]e’s got cash” is likewise of little consequence because Deparvine himself testified at trial that he paid with cash.

While the main thrust of a harmless error analysis under DiGuilio is to ensure that the error did not affect the verdict rather than a determination of whether there was other substantial evidence to support guilt, DiGuilio permits an examination of the other evidence of guilt in a resolution of the harmfulness issue. We can compare the permissible evidence on which the jury could have legitimately relied to the potential impact of the erroneously admitted evidence. Id. We have already outlined other substantial evidence of Deparvine’s guilt earlier in this opinion including the obviously important evidence that Deparvine’s DNA matched six spots of blood found in the victims’ Jeep, one of which was a mixture of Rick’s and Deparvine’s DNA. We do not repeat it here. However, when we consider the negligible value of the erroneously admitted statements, together with the totality of the evidence, we hold that there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted statements contributed to Depar-vine’s convictions.

II. MURDER CHARGE: INDICTMENT AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS

As Deparvine’s second challenge on appeal, he argues that the indictment charging him with two counts of murder in the first-degree was void for failure to specify whether the State would pursue a conviction under a theory of premeditation or felony murder. Deparvine contends that this failure results in a jurisdictional defect that warrants resubmission to a new grand jury. The State contends that Deparvine has waived this issue for review because he waited until after the State rested to move to dismiss the indictment. The trial court agreed with the State.

On January 28, 2004, a grand jury returned a five-count indictment against De-parvine. Counts one and two read:

COUNT ONE

The Grand Jurors of the County of Hillsborough, State of Florida, charge that WILLIAM JAMES DEPARVINE, between the 25th day of November, 2003, and the 26th day of November, 2003, inclusive, in the County of Hills-borough and State of Florida, did unlawfully and feloniously kill a human being, to-wit: RICHARD VAN DUSEN or any other human being by shooting him with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a firearm, and during the course of the commission of the offense, the said WILLIAM JAMES DEPARVINE, discharged a firearm and as a result of the discharge, death was inflicted upon RICHARD VAN DU-SEN, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, to-wit: Florida Statute 782.04(l)/775.087(2), and

COUNT TWO

The Grand Jurors of the County of Hillsborough, State of Florida, charge that WILLIAM JAMES DEPARVINE, between the 25th day of November, 2003, and the 26th day of November, 2003, inclusive, in the County of Hills-borough and State of Florida, did unlawfully and feloniously kill a human being, to-wit: KARLA VAN DUSEN or any other human being by shooting her with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a firearm, and/or stabbing her with a deadly weapon to-wit: a sharp object, and during the course of the commission of the offense, the said WILLIAM JAMES DEPAR-VINE, discharged a firearm and as a result of the discharge, death was inflicted upon KARLA VAN DUSEN contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, to-wit: Florida Statute 782.04(l)/775.087(2).

Generally, if an indictment or information fails to completely charge a crime under the laws of the state, the defect can be raised at any time. State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla.1983). However, “Where a defendant waits until after the State rests its case to challenge the propriety of an indictment, the defendant is required to show not that the indictment is technically defective but that it is so fundamentally defective that it cannot support a judgment of conviction.” Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1130 (Fla.2001).

In Ford, the defendant was indicted for sexual battery with a firearm, child abuse, and two counts of first-degree murder. Id. at 1125. After the State rested its case in the guilt phase, defense counsel challenged the propriety of the indictment on the child abuse charge for the first time. Id. at 1130. This Court held that although the statute cited in the indictment encompassed three separate child abuse offenses, “Any inquiry concerning the technical propriety of the indictment should have been raised prior to trial at which time any deficiency could have been cured. The indictment as worded adequately placed Ford on notice that he was charged with a violation of the child abuse proscriptions of section 827.03.” Id. Similarly, in Garcia v. State, 492 So.2d 360 (Fla.1986), the defendant filed several pretrial motions attempting to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the indictment did not charge a violation of the laws of the state, but there was no motion to dismiss specifically stating that the attempted murder charge did not allege premeditation. Id. at 368. We concluded that the technical defect, having not been challenged during pretrial, did not require dismissal because

[ejvidence of premeditation was presented and the jury instructed that attempted first-degree murder must either arise from premeditated design or be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a robbery.... It is clear to us that there was not a complete omission of an essential element and the indictment was not so vague as to mislead or prejudice appellant.

Id. As with Ford and Garcia, we conclude that Deparvine’s challenge also came too late and was properly rejected by the trial court. We also reject his challenge on the merits and find the indictment adequately charged first-degree murder, thereby allowing the State to proceed on the theory of premeditation and felony murder.

Even if the failure to specifically allege premeditation may have been a technical defect, defense counsel failed to challenge the indictment before trial. Rather, prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion for a statement of particulars as to aggravating circumstances and as to the theory of prosecution, which is governed by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.140(n). See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.140(n). To properly challenge the sufficiency of an indictment, defense counsel needed to move to dismiss the indictment under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.190(b)-(e). See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(b)-(c). Thus, Deparvine now must show that the indictment is so fundamentally defective that it cannot support a judgment of conviction.

However, we note that the wording in the indictment placed Deparvine on express notice that he was charged with a violation of the first-degree murder statute set out in section 782.04(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and the indictment included factual allegations as to the manner in which death was inflicted. That statute encompasses both premeditated and felony murder. Upon review we conclude that there was not a complete omission of an essential element and the indictment was not so vague as to mislead or prejudice Deparvine or so fundamentally defective that it cannot support a judgment of conviction.

We also reject the related claim that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could find premeditated murder, felony murder, or both, when the indictment only charged first-degree murder and cited the first-degree murder statute, but did not specify any specific theory. However, we have never held that the State (or a grand jury), must designate in the indictment or information the specific theory charged, so long as the defendant is put on notice that he is charged with first-degree murder under the relevant statute. Indeed, we have held that even where the State expressly charges premeditation it may nevertheless proceed under an alternative felony murder theory. O’Callaghan v. State, 429 So.2d 691, 695 (Fla.1983); see also Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201, 204 (Fla.1976).

III. CARJACKING CHARGE

Deparvine also contests several aspects of the carjacking charge, including the indictment, the jury instructions, the jury’s unanimity in reaching a guilty verdict, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The crux of Deparvine’s argument is that the 1971 Chevrolet truck was never specified as the subject motor vehicle of the carjacking charge in the indictment, and the State’s arguments as well as the trial court’s instructions may have confused the jury as to whether it was the truck or the Jeep that was claimed to have been carjacked.

Initially, we reject any claim that the indictment insufficiently described the motor vehicle that was the subject of the carjacking. Deparvine did not attack the indictment on this ground in the trial court. We also reject Deparvine’s contention that the State contended that the Jeep, not the truck, was the subject of the carjacking charge in count five. The State did not argue to the jury that the Jeep was the subject of the carjacking. The most that can be said of the State’s arguments during discussions on the motion for judgment of acquittal and outside the presence of the jury is that the State asserted that Deparvine may also have seized the Jeep to get back to the truck after the murders, but, nevertheless, the State asserted his “ultimate goal is the unlawful taking ... of the truck.” The State focused on its theory that Deparvine coveted the truck and murdered the Van Dusens to get it. The State argued that Deparvine “intended to obtain, acquire that truck by whatever means necessary” and that “[i]t was a robbery for that title [ (referring to the ownership title of the truck) ].”

Indeed, after reviewing the record on the court’s instructions and the State’s closing argument, we do not agree with Deparvine that there was a genuine risk that the jury was confused or that unanimity was compromised in considering the carjacking charge. In closing argument, the State never made any arguments that the Jeep was carjacked or stolen. Rather, the State began its closing argument stating, “Why kill for a truck, a truck, a motor vehicle, something as common and accessible as a truck? Because that truck was coveted by this defendant.” Similarly, in defense counsel’s closing argument, counsel focused on rebutting the State’s theory that the truck (and not the Jeep) was stolen. For example, defense counsel stated, “Common sense tells you that any devious plan to steal a truck, much less kill people, much less with a person with legal knowledge would not have left a trail a mile wide and big flashing arrows pointing directly to the guilty person.” On this record, we reject the claim that there is a genuine risk that some members of the jury may have convicted Deparvine of carjacking the truck while others may have convicted him of carjacking the Jeep.

We also reject Deparvine’s claim of error on the carjacking instructions. We agree with the State that defense counsel never objected to the instructions on the basis argued here. Where a defendant does not object to the jury instructions at trial, the defendant waives the issue for appellate review unless the error, if any, is fundamental. State v. Weaver, 957 So.2d 586, 588 (Fla.2007) (citing Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366, 370 (Fla.2002)). In State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla.1991), we explained:

To justify not imposing the contemporaneous objection rule, “the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” In other words, “fundamental error occurs only when the omission is pertinent or material to what the jury must consider in order to convict.” Failing to instruct on an element of the crime over which the record reflects there was no dispute is not fundamental error and there must be an objection to preserve the issue for appeal.

Id. at 644-45 (citations omitted) (quoting Broum v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960), and Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862, 863 (Fla.1982)). In Deparvine’s case, the instructions properly tracked the language of the indictment and the statute. See § 812.133, Fla. Stat. (2003).

Furthermore, we reject Depar-vine’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of carjacking. Although Deparvine argues that the carjacking charge could not be based on the taking of the truck because there is no evidence regarding what may have occurred before the Van Dusens were killed, Florida Statutes provide: “An act shall be deemed ⅛ the course of the taking’ if it occurs either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking of the property and if it and the act of taking constitute a continuous series of acts or events.” § 812.133(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). Whether the Van Dusens were murdered after Deparvine took possession is irrelevant since a reasonable jury could infer from the evidence that the taking was the consequence of a continuous series of acts or events all focused on the taking of the truck.

IV. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

We have also reviewed the sufficiency of evidence regarding Deparvine’s first-degree murder conviction. Even though Deparvine has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, this Court will “independently review the evidence to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support a first-degree murder conviction.” Snelgrove v. State, 921 So.2d 560, 570 (Fla.2005) (citing Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 649 (Fla.2000)), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 836, 127 S.Ct. 104, 166 L.Ed.2d 63 (2006).

“Generally, an appellate court will not reverse a conviction that is supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Reynolds v. State, 934 So.2d 1128, 1145 (Fla.2006) (citing Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002)). “If, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction.” Reynolds, 934 So.2d at 1145. “However, where a conviction is based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, a special standard of review applies.” Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 155 (Fla.2002) (citing Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1982)).

Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The question of whether the evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for the jury to determine, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the jury verdict, we will not reverse.

Darling, 808 So.2d at 155 (quoting State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989)). Therefore, “ ‘circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to sustain a conviction’ provided that the evidence is (1) ‘consistent with the defendant’s guilt’ and (2) ‘inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” Delgado v. State 948 So.2d 681, 689-90 (Fla.2006) (quoting Orme v. State, 677 So.2d 258, 261 & n. 1 (Fla.1996)).

In Deparvine’s case, the State’s evidence was entirely circumstantial, and the special standard of review applies. Applying this standard, we hold that the State has presented co