Opinion ID: 2321212
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Attempted Robbery in the First Degree

Text: Harris next contends that because the trial judge was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Harris struck the victim, the trial judge erred in finding that each and every element of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In order for the Family Court to adjudge a juvenile delinquent for Robbery in the First Degree, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in the course of committing theft, the [juvenile] uses or threatens the immediate use of force upon another person with intent to ... [c]ompel the owner of the property or another person to deliver up the property [16] and in the course of the commission of the crime or immediate flight therefrom, the [juvenile] or another participant in the crime... [c]auses physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime. [17] Pursuant to title 11, section 531 of the Delaware Code, [a] person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if the person... [i]ntentionally does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as the person believes them to be, is a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime by the person. [18] A juvenile may be adjudged delinquent either as an accomplice or as a principal in the criminal acts. [19] The trial judge found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that three juveniles had conspired to commit robbery. After assessing the credibility of the witnesses and resolving inconsistent testimony, he noted, I think the three of you met there. That [M.] said he was going to get money. That you understood that was part of his plan. The trial judge also found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that force was used in the course of committing the attempted robbery. Although the trial judge noted that he could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Harris was the one who struck Adams, the trial judge found the State had proven that Adams was hit on the head by one of the three juveniles as he left the store. This finding is supported by Harris's own testimony that M. hit [Adams] like with his elbow and then come with his left hand to him and the man had fell. Then [M.] kicked him with the skates on. T.A. also testified that M. pushed and punched Adams before he fell to the ground. Finally, the trial judge found the additional circumstance that the victim was injured during the commission of the crime. Adams testified that as a result of getting kicked in the face he had to have laser surgery on his left eye. [20] Given the finding of a conspiracy among the juveniles and the actions taken, the record reflects that there was sufficient evidence to adjudicate Harris guilty of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree. [21]