State of Iowa v. K'Von James Henderson, 908 N.W.2d 868

On Feb. 10, 2015, Henderson agreed to be a getaway driver in a planned pharmacy robbery with Mallett, Plummer, Anderson, and Nelson; two men entered the pharmacy and stole drugs and cash.
Anderson produced a handgun (“Billy”) immediately before entry; employees perceived at least one firearm; the robbers used a threatening note and a gun during the theft.
Henderson drove to a prearranged rendezvous point but left before the gun was produced and never picked up the robbers because police intercepted them; he later met co-defendants and divided proceeds.
Henderson was charged and tried jointly on first-degree robbery (Iowa Code § 711.2 — dangerous weapon alternative); the jury convicted him of first-degree robbery.
On appeal Henderson argued insufficient evidence he knew a gun would be used and that counsel was ineffective for failing to move for acquittal on that ground. The Supreme Court reviewed whether aiding-and-abetting liability requires knowledge of the dangerous-weapon element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a getaway driver can be convicted of first-degree (armed) robbery as an aider and abettor absent proof he knew or intended a dangerous weapon would be used	The State: foreseeability of weapon use suffices; Henderson participated in planning and therefore is liable for foreseeable armed conduct	Henderson: State failed to prove he knew a gun would be used; lacking that knowledge he cannot be guilty of first-degree robbery as an aider/abettor; counsel ineffective for not moving for acquittal on this ground	Reversed. Aiding-and-abetting liability for the dangerous-weapon alternative requires proof the aider knew a dangerous weapon would be or was being used; evidence here was insufficient, so remand for conviction and sentence on second-degree robbery.

State v. Tangie, 616 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa 2000) (aider-and-abettor must know of the crime at or before its commission)
State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180 (Iowa 2013) (knowledge and the accused’s part in the crime are required for aiding and abetting)
State v. Tyler, 873 N.W.2d 741 (Iowa 2016) (distinguishing joint criminal conduct and foreseeability of subsequent crimes)
State v. Countryman, 572 N.W.2d 553 (Iowa 1997) (joint criminal conduct can create vicarious liability for foreseeable crimes)
State v. Ortiz, 905 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Akiti, 701 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2012) (upholding getaway driver’s armed-robbery conviction where a jury could find he knew a confederate would be armed)