Florida’s Principal Theory: How You Can Be Charged for a Crime You Didn’t Personally Commit

It may come as a shock to some, but under Florida law, a defendant can be charged with a crime even when they did not commit the crime personally. Using the theory known as “the principal theory,” you can be charged for committing a crime because you helped, induced, or assisted someone else in the commission of a crime. This legal principle is significant in many Florida criminal cases.

What is Florida’s principal theory?

The statute provides for charging a person as a principal if that person helped or assisted in any way another person to commit a crime.

This, in simple terms, implies that for a person to be charged as a principal for a particular criminal activity, they are not necessarily expected to carry out that criminal action.

Some of the ways in which prosecutors can try to apply principal liability include:

• An alleged getaway car driver in case of a robbery
• Assisting or being involved in planning a crime
• Supplying weapons or equipment for the crime
• Being an alleged lookout for a crime
• Encouraging criminal behavior

As per the Florida law, the principal faces similar criminal liability as that of the actual perpetrator.

Presence alone is not enough

An essential constraint to the statute is that the mere presence at the crime scene does not automatically constitute grounds for making an individual liable for the principal charge.

For the prosecutor to obtain a conviction, it is essential to provide concrete evidence that the defendant knew that he was actively participating in a crime.

For instance, just being a passenger in a vehicle while the driver commits a crime would not be sufficient to charge the passenger with the offense, since the prosecutors must be able to demonstrate that the passenger knew what he was doing.

How prosecutors attempt to prove participation

In many principal theory cases, the prosecutor will use circumstantial evidence extensively. The prosecutor might try to prove participation based on the following evidence:

• Text messages or mobile phone logs
• Video surveillance
• Statements to law enforcement officers
• Social media posts
• Witness testimony
• Preparation or planning

The prosecutor could also claim that someone’s pre- or post-crime behavior is indicative of participation in the crime.

But this type of case is not always clear-cut. Circumstantial evidence can sometimes have more than one meaning, and the investigator’s conclusions may not be all-inclusive.

Common defense strategies

Since principal theory cases require prosecution to prove the knowledge of involvement, many defense lawyers try to question whether the prosecutor can prove that the defendants knew about it. Defenses might include:

• The lack of knowledge concerning the crime.
• Simply being at the location where the crime took place.
• No intention to help commit the crime.
• Identity confusion.
• Weak witness testimony.
• Insufficient proof that the defendant was involved in the crime.

Sometimes, the defense lawyer will claim that the prosecution is trying to “guilt by association” and is using friends to charge the defendant with the crime.

Talk to a Tallahassee, FL, Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

Luke Newman, P.A., represents the interests of Tallahassee residents who are facing serious charges. Call our Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin preparing your defense right away.