The circuit court was plainly wrong in finding evidence sufficient to support the defendant’s guilt for larceny. Guilt depended on inferences about a videotape’s accuracy and date, because not only was the video not admitted into evidence but neither was any evidence about when the video was taken. The circuit court must have also inferred that the items the appellant placed in his pocket were items that belonged to the store and were worth some value. Making one inference based only upon another inference is an impermissible means to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reversed and final judgment.