(1) assisted the actual perpetrators by doing or saying something that caused, encouraged, assisted, or incited the perpetrators to actually commit the crime, and (2) intended to participate in the crime. A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), cause dismissed, 605 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1992). The elements of assistance of the perpetrator and intent may be proved by a combination of surrounding circumstances from which a trier of fact can reasonably infer defendant's guilt.
PER CURIAM. We originally accepted jurisdiction to review A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), based on conflict jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Under the case law, Rocker's mere presence at the scene, knowledge of the robbery attempt, and flight from the scene are insufficient to support his conviction as a principal for Banks' conduct. See McBride, 7 So.3d at 1148 (citing A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)); Valdez, 504 So.2d at 10. Granted, the State could show Rocker's intent by circumstantial evidence.
Under the case law, Rocker's mere presence at the scene, knowledge of the robbery attempt, and flight from the scene are insufficient to support his conviction as a principal for Banks' conduct. See McBride, 7 So. 3d at 1148 (citing A.B.G. v. State, 586 So. 2d 445, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)); Valdez, 504 So. 2d at 10. Granted, the State could show Rocker's intent by circumstantial evidence.
See Valdez v. State, 504 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Under the case law, Rocker's mere presence at the scene, knowledge of the robbery attempt, and flight from the scene are insufficient to support his conviction as a principal for Banks' conduct. See McBride, 7 So. 3d at 1148 (citing A.B.G. v. State, 586 So. 2d 445, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)); Valdez, 504 So. 2d at 10. Granted, the State could show Rocker's intent by circumstantial evidence.
To prove the crime of aiding and abetting, the state must show that the defendant "(1) assisted the actual perpetrators by doing or saying something that caused, encouraged, assisted, or incited the perpetrators to actually commit the crime, and (2) intended to participate in the crime." See A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see also T.S. v. State, 675 So.2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The facts in this case are similar to those in A.B.G.. There, as here, only one witness testified on behalf of the state.
Under this theory, the appellant could be convicted of trafficking if the state's evidence was sufficient to show that he: "(1) assisted the actual perpetrators by doing or saying something that caused, encouraged, assisted, or incited the perpetrators to actually commit the crime, and (2) intended to participate in the crime." K.O., 673 So.2d at 48 (citing A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)); see also T.J.T. v. State, 460 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). As with the count for conspiracy, the state may rely upon circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of an aider or abettor provided such evidence is both consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See K.O., 673 So.2d at 48.
Under this theory, appellant could be convicted of burglary if the evidence presented by the state at trial was sufficient to show that he (1) assisted the actual perpetrators by doing or saying something that caused, encouraged, assisted, or incited the perpetrators to actually commit the crime, and (2) intended to participate in the crime. A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), cause dismissed, 605 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1992). The elements of assistance of the perpetrator and intent may be proven by a combination of surrounding circumstances from which a trier of fact can reasonably infer defendant's guilt.
Affirmed. See A.M. v. State, 755 So.2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ; A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
See K.O. v. State, 673 So.2d 47, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“While mere presence at the scene, knowledge of the crime, and flight are insufficient to justify a conviction, where the [S]tate presents additional evidence which contradicts the defendant's theory of innocence, the trial court's decision to deny a motion of acquittal must be affirmed.” (citing A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445, 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); In the Interest of A.R., 460 So.2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)). Accordingly, we affirm A.D.'s adjudications for theft of the ATV.