Del. C. » Title 11 — Delaware Criminal Code · CHAPTER 2. General Provisions Concerning Offenses · Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 271 (2026)

Liability for the conduct of another — Generally

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person is guilty of an offense committed by another person when:

(1) Acting with the state of mind that is sufficient for commission of the offense, the person causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in conduct constituting the offense; or

(2) Intending to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense the person:

a. Solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to commit it; or

b. Aids, counsels or agrees or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing it; or

c. Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make a proper effort to do so; or

(3) The person’s conduct is expressly declared by this Criminal Code or another statute to establish the person’s complicity.

Nothing in this section shall apply to any law-enforcement officer or the officer’s agent while acting in the lawful performance of duty.

11 Del. C. 1953, §  271;  58 Del. Laws, c. 497, §  1;  70 Del. Laws, c. 186, §  1; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1990). “11 Del.C. § 271. Liability for the conduct of another — Generally.”
Guy v. State, 82 A.3d 710 (Del. 2013). “at 350 (holding that a "witness qualifies as an accomplice if he or she meets the definition of one” under 11 Del. C. § 271(2)b., which is the same statute that applied to Guy’s case).”
United States v. Leslie, 411 F. Supp. 215 (D. Del. 1976). “ALI Model Penal Code § 204(3); 11 Del.C. § 271(2). 3 . One of the Congressional purposes in enacting the new drug laws was to provide “for an overall balanced scheme of criminal penalties for offenses involving drugs”, House Rep.”
Barnes v. State, 352 A.2d 409 (Del. 1976). · cites it 2× “See 11 Del. C. § 271 (2) (b); 3 Johnson v. State, Del.”
Brooks v. State, 367 A.2d 638 (Del. 1976). “We find controlling 11 Del.C. § 271 which provides in its pertinent part: “A person is guilty of an offense committed by another person when: “(2) Intending to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense he : “b.”
State v. Kellam (Del. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 4× “The parties and the trial court discussed the accomplice liability instructions of 11 Del. C. § 271, et seq, but none present, neither at the prayer conference nor in the time allotted for revision after, noticed the absence of a 11 Del.”
State v. Rivers (Del. Super. Ct. 2022). · cites it 3× “1981) (“The Conspiracy Statute has its own ‘accomplice liability’ language; for it to be invoked, there need be no reference to 11 Del. C. § 271 . . . .” By consequence, “there is no merit in the defendant’s position that the jury’s rejection of § 271 accomplice liability means…”
Kellam v. State (Del. 2025). · cites it 3× “Tracking 11 Del. C. § 271, the instruction informed the jury that, to convict Kellam for the crimes of his accomplices, it was required to make certain findings beyond a reasonable doubt: So, in order to find a person guilty of an offense physically committed by another person,…”
State v. Bromwell (Del. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 271(2)(b), a person is guilty of an offense MR.”
Daniels v. State (Del. 2021). · cites it 2× “First, Delaware’s accomplice-liability statute, found at 11 Del. C. § 271, appears to require more active conduct on the part of an accomplice than the passive permission that will support a conviction under N.”
State v. Johnson (Del. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “37 Given that Defendant’s charges are the product of the principal, Celestine Johnson’s actions, the State’s evidence necessarily must have showed that Defendant was an accomplice to the 31 11 Del. C. § 271 32 11 Del. C. § 1447; D.”
McMullen v. State (Del. 2021). “To the contrary, the trial court extensively described in detail the case against McMullen, and noted that one reason for crediting Williams’s testimony was that it was consistent with Mills’s testimony, “and the testimony of other witnesses and the forensic evidence.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— 11 Del. C. § 271(2) — 8 cases
Guy v. State, 82 A.3d 710 (Del. 2013). “at 350 (holding that a "witness qualifies as an accomplice if he or she meets the definition of one” under 11 Del. C. § 271(2)b., which is the same statute that applied to Guy’s case).”
United States v. Leslie, 411 F. Supp. 215 (D. Del. 1976). “ALI Model Penal Code § 204(3); 11 Del.C. § 271(2). 3 . One of the Congressional purposes in enacting the new drug laws was to provide “for an overall balanced scheme of criminal penalties for offenses involving drugs”, House Rep.”
Barnes v. State, 352 A.2d 409 (Del. 1976). “See 11 Del. C. § 271 (2) (b); 3 Johnson v. State, Del.”
State v. Rivers (Del. Super. Ct. 2022). “1981) (“The Conspiracy Statute has its own ‘accomplice liability’ language; for it to be invoked, there need be no reference to 11 Del. C. § 271 . . . .” By consequence, “there is no merit in the defendant’s position that the jury’s rejection of § 271 accomplice liability means…”
State v. Wilson (Del. Super. Ct. 2023).
— 11 Del. C. § 271(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Bromwell (Del. Super. Ct. 2016). “Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 271(2)(b), a person is guilty of an offense MR.”
Delgado v. State (Del. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.