If the state cannot meet this burden, a judgment of acquittal should be granted. M.P.W. v. State, 702 So.2d 591, 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The State did not meet its burden, and this Court should vacate Mr. Johnson's burglary conviction.

Because the only witness to the crime was the victim and he could not definitively state who attacked him, the State was unable to overcome D.F.J.'s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See T.L.M. v. State, 755 So.2d 749, 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing M.P.W. v. State, 702 So.2d 591, 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). Accordingly, D.F.J.'s motion for judgment of dismissal in this circumstantial evidence case should have been granted.

In fact, given Dr. Hamilton's testimony that Ketley and Neltha were more than thirty feet apart when K.S.H. punched Neltha, the trier of fact could reasonably have concluded that the State established beyond a reasonable doubt that, under the circumstances, K.S.H. was not justified in the use of any force. This case is thus distinguishable from the cases relied upon by K.S.H.: S.R. v. State, 11 So.3d at 442, M.P.W. v. State, 702 So.2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and D.M.L. v. State, 773 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). In each of these cases, the evidence establishing the defense was neither controverted nor rebutted by the State.

Furthermore, mere presence of a defendant at a crime scene is insufficient to establish guilt. See M.P.W. v. State, 702 So.2d 591, 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The only direct evidence that C.J.W. participated in the criminal mischief was his statement to the investigating deputy that it was his brother's idea to break into the machine.

Where, as here, the uncontroverted evidence is that respondent did not initiate the fight, and was acting to protect herself from her attacker, the defense of self defense applies. See M.P.W. v. State, 702 So.2d 591, 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("The trial judge, as a fact finder, may determine the credibility of a witness. However, while the judge may find that a witness is not credible, such a finding does not permit the judge to interpret that witness's testimony contrary to what was actually testified.

In determining whether the state presented sufficient evidence to overcome appellant's reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the state must prove each element of a crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See M.P.W. v. State, 702 So.2d 591, 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). If the State cannot do so, then a judgment of acquittal should be granted. See id.

Our courts have long held that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1989), and M.P.W. v. State, 702 So.2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). While the question of whether the circumstantial evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable inference is generally a question of fact for the jury, the jury's determination must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Long v. State, 689 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1997).