MEMORANDUM DECISION
Weissmann, Judge.
[1] Fourteen-year-old D.P. challenges his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for his role in the theft of two Xbox gaming consoles. D.P. contends the State did not establish that he knowingly participated in the theft. We disagree and affirm.
Facts
[2] In August 2023, D.P. learned that an individual named E.P. had an Xbox console for sale. D.P. texted E.P. about the console but said that he could not make an online payment. E.P. responded that a cash payment would be fine if they went to a local bank to ensure the cash was not counterfeit. D.P. asked E.P. for a ride to the bank and if D.P.’s two brothers could come along. E.P. agreed and picked up D.P. and his brothers later that day, at a specified address away from D.P.’s home “so his mom does not suspect anything.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 26. With everyone in E.P.’s car, the group headed to the bank. D.P. was sitting in the backseat with an Xbox in his lap. A second Xbox was in the trunk of E.P.’s car.
[3] On the way to the bank, D.P. suddenly asked if they could stop at his house after all. E.P. agreed, and when he parked outside D.P.’s home, D.P. silently got out of the car with the Xbox. The brother sitting in the front seat told E.P. that he would be paying for the Xbox on D.P.’s behalf. The same brother then asked E.P. if the second Xbox was also for sale. E.P. told him it was and retrieved the Xbox from the trunk. This Xbox was also taken with no payment. At some point during the encounter, one of the brothers pulled out a gun and flashed it towards E.P.
[4] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that D.P. had engaged in conduct that, if committed by an adult, amounted to armed robbery, intimidation, theft, and criminal organization activity. At the fact-finding hearing, E.P. testified that the stolen Xboxes were worth approximately $1,200 in total. The juvenile court adjudicated D.P. a delinquent as to the theft allegation, classified as a Level 6 felony for those charged as adults, but found that the State did not meet its burden of proof on the remaining allegations.
Discussion and Decision
[5] On appeal, D.P. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he engaged in conduct that would constitute Level 6 felony theft if committed by an adult. “In juvenile delinquency adjudication proceedings, the State must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” C.D.H. v. State, 860 N.E.2d 608, 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). As always, we do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. The trial courts adjudication will be affirmed if “evidence of probative value exists so that a reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the underlying crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
[6] Theft occurs when a principal or accomplice “knowingly or intentionally exert[s] unauthorized control over another persons property, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of the propertys value or use.” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). The crime becomes a felony when “the value of the property is at least seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) and less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(A). D.P. argues that the State did not prove he acted as either a principal or an accomplice in the theft of E.P.’s property.
[7] In Indiana, there is no difference in culpability between a principal and an accomplice. Indeed, an accomplice is “criminally responsible for everything which follows” from the criminal conduct, even if “it was not intended as part of the original design or common plan.” Griffin v. State, 16 N.E.3d 997, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014); see also Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4 (accomplice liability statute). At bottom, the State must demonstrate the alleged accomplices concerted action or participation in an illegal act. Id. The accomplice need not participate in every element of the offense to be convicted of it. McGee v. State, 699 N.E.2d 264, 265 (Ind. 1998).
[8] The State agrees that the evidence does not support D.P.’s conviction as a principal but maintains the evidence of his participation as an accomplice is overwhelming. All that is required is evidence of a defendants affirmative conduct, either in words or actions, from which a common design or purpose to effect the commission of a crime may be reasonably inferred. Pugh v. State, 52 N.E.3d 955, 967 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). In determining whether a defendant aided in the commission of a crime; courts consider several factors, like: (1) presence at the crime scene; (2) companionship with others engaged in the crime; (3) failure to oppose the crime; (4) and course of conduct before, during, and after the crime. Parsley v. State, 119 N.E.3d 131, 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Wieland v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1198, 1202 (Ind. 2000)).
[9] Here, evidence of all four of the above factors leads towards finding that D.P. acted as an accomplice. First, D.P. was present at the crime scene. Second, the principal actor was D.P.’s brother. Third, no evidence shows that D.P. objected to the theft in any way. And lastly, D.P.’s conduct over the course of the theft illustrates his participation. D.P. organized the meeting where the Xboxes were stolen and invited the two other perpetrators. The sum of this evidence demonstrated that D.P. knowingly engaged in a plan to take E.P.’s property.
[10] But D.P. also argues that there was no evidence he was involved in the theft of the second Xbox because it occurred after he left the scene, with the first Xbox in hand. The States burden was to demonstrate that D.P. aided in the commission of a theft that resulted in more than $750 in stolen property. D.P. knew that E.P. possessed two Xboxes and the events support the inference that he knowingly participated in the plan to steal them both.
[11] We affirm D.P.’s juvenile adjudication for conduct that would constitute Level 6 felony theft if committed by an adult.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Weissmann
Judges Vaidik and Foley concur.
Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.