Accomplice Accountability for Firearm-Enhanced Robbery: Shared Intent as a Basis for Liability Under Delaware Law

Introduction

Delgado v. State (Del. S. Ct., May 28, 2025) addresses the scope of accomplice liability under Delaware’s robbery and weapons statutes. Appellant Alexander Delgado and his codefendant, Keith Gibson, entered a Wilmington Rite Aid on June 8, 2021, and committed a two-minute armed robbery. Gibson brandished a .357 revolver while Delgado physically assisted by emptying cigarette packs. Though Delgado never handled the gun, he was convicted of (1) first-degree robbery (11 Del. C. § 832(a)(2)) and (2) possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (PFDCF, 11 Del. C. § 1447A).

On appeal, Delgado challenged (i) the sufficiency of the evidence that he shared Gibson’s intent to display or use the firearm, and (ii) the adequacy of the jury instruction on accomplice liability (11 Del. C. §§ 271(2)(b), 274). The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed, clarifying that a participant who knowingly aids a robbery in which a gun is displayed shares criminal accountability—even without personal possession—if the jury, viewing all circumstantial evidence, could find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware of and acquiesced to the weapon’s use.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court applied de novo review to Delgado’s challenge to the denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal.
It held that circumstantial evidence—principally surveillance footage showing Delgado and Gibson entering together, the gun displayed within inches of Delgado, Delgado’s calm reaction, and his active participation in the theft—was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Delgado shared Gibson’s intent to display the weapon.
The Court reaffirmed that under § 271(2)(b) & § 274, an accomplice may be convicted of the degree of offense compatible with his own mental state and accountability for aggravating facts.
On the unpreserved jury-instruction challenge, the Court found no plain error: the instruction accurately required the jury to find Delgado’s personal awareness of and intent regarding the gun display.
The convictions for first-degree robbery and PFDCF were therefore affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Allen v. State, 970 A.2d 203 (Del. 2009): Established that accomplice liability requires proof that the defendant “shared [the principal’s] purpose” to commit the crime, and that the standard for sufficiency of evidence applies equally to direct and circumstantial proof.
Pardo v. State, 160 A.3d 1136 (Del. 2017): Clarified that appellate review of sufficiency challenges is de novo and permits all reasonable inferences in the State’s favor.
Vincent v. State, 996 A.2d 777 (Del. 2010): Confirmed that conviction may rest solely on circumstantial evidence and that courts “do not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence.”
Clay v. State, 164 A.3d 907 (Del. 2017): Upheld an accomplice’s first-degree robbery and PFDCF convictions where video and police testimony established knowledge of a firearm, despite no personal handling of the weapon.
Cubbage v. State, 2003 WL 21488129 (Del. 2003): Held that an accomplice is liable for weapons offenses integral to a felony even if he never personally possessed the gun.

Legal Reasoning

1. Sufficiency of Evidence
Under § 271(2)(b), a person who “intends to promote or facilitate” an offense and “aids” another is an accomplice. § 274 mandates that the accomplice’s degree of liability corresponds to his own mental state and accountability for aggravating circumstances. First-degree robbery requires proof that a firearm was displayed in the course of a second-degree robbery (11 Del. C. § 832(a)(2)).

The Court held that video footage showing Delgado calmly trailing Gibson—standing only feet from the drawn gun, reacting with no surprise, then proceeding to fill his bag with property—supported a rational inference that Delgado was aware of Gibson’s intent to use or brandish the firearm. This mirrors Clay, where similar video evidence sufficed to show shared knowledge and intent.

2. Accomplice Liability for PFDCF
Under Cubbage, participation in a robbery involving a firearm renders the accomplice vicariously liable for possession of that firearm during a felony. Delgado’s knowing assistance in a robbery in which a gun was brandished triggered PFDCF liability, regardless of actual handling.

3. Jury Instruction and Plain Error
Delgado failed to object contemporaneously to the accomplice-liability instruction, which correctly stated that each participant may be held to the degree of robbery compatible with his own accountability for knowingly displaying a weapon. Because the instruction tracked § 274 and the weight of evidence made any error non-prejudicial, there was no plain error affecting the trial’s outcome.

Impact

Delgado v. State cements the principle that, under Delaware law:

An accomplice to an armed robbery need not personally handle the weapon to be convicted of first-degree robbery and PFDCF so long as the evidence shows he knowingly participated in and shared the intent behind the gun’s display.
Circumstantial evidence—especially surveillance video—can satisfy the State’s burden to prove an accomplice’s mental state beyond a reasonable doubt.
Trial courts’ accomplice-liability instructions that accurately recite 11 Del. C. §§ 271 and 274 will withstand plain-error review absent prejudice to fundamental fairness.

Future armed-robbery prosecutions in Delaware are likely to rely heavily on video evidence and § 274’s degree-matching rule to secure accomplice convictions, extending liability to all who knowingly aid a firearm-enhanced felony.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Accomplice Liability: If you help plan or commit a crime and intend to further it, you can be convicted for crimes your partner commits—even if you didn’t do every act yourself.
PFDCF: “Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony.” You can be guilty of this offense even if someone else holds the gun, provided you knowingly joined in the felony where the gun was used.
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court asks whether any reasonable jury, viewing all the evidence in the State’s favor, could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plain Error: A fundamental legal mistake that was so serious it likely changed the trial’s outcome. If a defendant never objected at trial, an appellate court will only reverse if such an error is clearly prejudicial.

Conclusion

Delgado v. State clarifies that under Delaware law, accomplices to an armed robbery are criminally responsible for first-degree robbery and PFDCF if they knowingly participate in the robbery with shared intent to display a weapon—even without personal possession. Surveillance video and other circumstantial proof suffice to establish the necessary mental state. Accomplice-liability instructions that mirror statutory language will survive plain-error scrutiny absent manifest injustice. This decision reinforces Delaware’s robust approach to firearm-enhanced felonies, ensuring that all who intentionally facilitate an armed crime face full legal accountability.