an aider and abettor, the state had to show that he (1) assisted the actual perpetrator by doing something that caused, encouraged, assisted, or incited the perpetrator to actual ly commit the crime; and (2) intended to participate in the crime. See Wyatt v. State, 755 So.2d 671, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Swanson v. State, 713 So.2d 1097, 1099-1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). These elements of aiding and abetting may be proven by a combination of surrounding circumstances from which a jury can reasonably infer a defendant’s guilt. See A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The evidence was sufficient to justify the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal. See Benedith v. State, 717 So.2d 472, 475 (Fla.1998). See also Leonard v. State, 731 So.2d 712, 718 (Fla. 2d DCA) (<HOLDING>) rev. denied, 735 So.2d 1286 (Fla.1999). This
holding trial court properly overruled defendants motion for judgment of acquittal where corroborating evidence existed holding a defendant was entitled to a directed verdict when none of the evidence presented by the state placed the defendant at the crime scene and the jury was left to speculate as to the defendants guilt holding that there is no need for a formal motion for a judgment of acquittal in a bench trial because the plea of not guilty asks the court for a judgment of acquittal holding the trial court properly denied defendants motion for judgment of acquittal although defendant offered evidence as to how his fingerprints were placed on a candy box found at the scene of the crime holding that defendants fingerprints atthe scene of the crime which were otherwise unexplained combined with circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction