A Federal court ruling says, “mere presence at the scene of the crime or mere presence in the area of where an offense is being committed or mere association with the person or persons who are violating the law is not in and of itself sufficient to support a conviction of a conspiracy or a violation of the statutes.” Laws at the state court level are similar in that they call for courts to tell jurors that just because a person is present at a crime scene and possesses “guilty knowledge” about the crimes being committed, “mere presence” is still not sufficient proof the accused aided and abetted in those crimes.

In Florida, the jury may be given instructions of “mere presence” in certain cases such as when the accused makes the request and the court feels it is appropriate. In regards to principal actors aiding and abetting crimes, the standard jury instructions in Florida say that you are guilty if you: “had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done,” or if “did some act or said some word which was intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist or advise the other person or persons to actually commit or attempt to commit the crime.”

In general, Florida’s law is viewed as prosecution-friendly but that does not mean that an experienced, good defense lawyer cannot still fight the charges that are based only on presence. Even if the jury does not receive a “mere presence” instruction, Florida’s broad application of principal theory in criminal cases is not enough to support a conviction. An example happened in 2012 when a Florida appeals court overturned the conviction of a woman accused of conspiracy to traffic Oxycontin. During the trial, officers observed an illicit transaction between the driver of a black car and a man on the street. The woman in the back seat of the black car was identified later and the appeals court reversed the conviction.

This proves that more evidence of conversations, pre-arrangements between alleged conspirators and the accused or meetings is needed, “from which the jury could infer the existence of an agreement." Because the woman’s case did not have any conversations, meetings or agreements, there was not enough evidence to convict. Other cases have reached the same conclusion such as the case of a man who was convicted of grand theft and burglary. Even when there was knowledge that the crime was going to be committed, just the “mere presence” of the accused at the scene was not enough evidence to convict him of the actual crime.

This means that knowledge of an offense being committed is not the same as actually participating in the crime. The bottom line requires the state to offer something more than the “mere presence” at the crime scene to convict

If you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and was accused of the crime, you should consult with criminal attorney James Davis to help defend your rights.