doubt, we will affirm the conviction. Id. Here, Sparks claims that “[n]o evidence at trial could lead to the conclusion that [Sparks] had anything at all to do with the burglary which constitutes the underlying charge for this felony murder conviction. [Sparks] did not enter the house.” Sparks’ Br. p. 19. However, our review of the evidence reveals that Sparks participated in the crime by knocking on the doors of the targeted victims. Sparks also functioned as a “lookout” who remained outside Scott’s house with a cell phone so that he could warn the young men if the police or another visitor arrived at Scott’s house. A “lookout” is an accomplice to the crime and subject to being tried as a principal. Terry v. State, 545 N.E.2d 831, 831 (Ind.1989). See also Exum, 812 N.E.2d at 208 (<HOLDING>). There is sufficient evidence to support
holding that when defendant was guilty of burglary but the only evidence that he was armed was from his own statement existence of the firearm went only to the degree of the offense and was not as an element of proof holding that defendant who was not the leader of the robbery was not carrying a firearm and may not have been in the apartment when his accomplice died was criminally liable for the actions of his coperpetrators holding that the mandatory minimum sentencing provision applies if the defendant knew that his accomplice possessed a firearm and used it during the commission of the crime holding that an enhancement for an express threat of death may not be applied to the sentence for robbery when the threat is related to the use of the firearm and the defendant has a  924c sentence for the same firearm holding that in a prosecution for possession of an unregistered firearm evidence of an armed robbery committed with the firearm was admissible