Hanks v. State (2010)

Cf. Rocker v. State, 122 So. 3d 898, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("In order to convict Rocker as a principal, the State had to prove two elements: (1) that Rocker intended for the robbery to be committed and (2) that Rocker assisted Banks in the commission of the offense."); Hanks v. State, 43 So. 3d 917, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("Mere presence at the scene of an offense is not sufficient to support a principals instruction."); Rocker, 122 So. 3d at 906 (Northcutt, J., concurring)…

“Mere presence at the scene of an offense is not sufficient to support a principals instruction.” Hanks v. State, 43 So. 3d 917, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

However, “that discretion, as with any issue of law[,] is strictly limited by case law.” Ramirez Ramos v. State, 274 So. 3d 395, 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). 14 Case law provides that “[g]iving the [‘P]rincipals[’] instruction is error when there is no evidence that the defendant had a conscious intent that the crime be committed and did some act or said some word which was intended to and in fact did incite a third party to commit the crime with which the defendant is charged.”…

However,' without more, “mere presence at the scene of the crime [is]' insufficient to establish participation in the offense.” Garcia, 899 So.2d at 450 ; accord Hanks v. State, 43 So.3d 917, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).