Opinion ID: 1058401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Jones does not challenge his status as a convicted felon under Code § 18.2-308.2. Rather, he contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the item found in his truck was a firearm, which is defined as any instrument designed, made, and intended to expel a projectile by means of an explosion, even though the Commonwealth does not need to prove the instrument was operable, capable of being fired, or had the actual capacity to do serious harm. Jones argues that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, and that the Commonwealth only established that the firearm appeared, by all outward appearances, to be a firearm. Jones argues that the firearm was admitted into evidence over his objection. Jones asserts there was no testimony offered as to the nature or character of the firearm, and there was no testimony concerning the make, model, or type of the firearm admitted into evidence. Jones argues that the Commonwealth did not present an expert witness or a certificate of analysis from a laboratory that the weapon was examined or fired by a weapons technician. Finally, Jones contends there was no forensic examination offered concerning whether the instrument was designed, made, and intended to expel a projectile by means of an explosion. The Commonwealth responds that the judgment is not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it, and that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented included the observations of the officer who seized the firearm, Jones' acknowledgement when questioned about the seized gun that he purchased it on the street, and the trial court's examination of the gun, ammunition magazine, and bullets at trial. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor as the prevailing party below. Perez v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 724, 728, 652 S.E.2d 95, 97 (2007). The judgment of the trial court will only be reversed if it is plainly wrong or without evidentiary support. Id. The issue upon appellate review is `whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 437, 442, 657 S.E.2d 499, 502 (2008) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)) (emphasis in original). Code § 18.2-308.2 proscribes the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 573, 584, 562 S.E.2d 139, 145 (2002), this Court held that in order to sustain a conviction for possessing a firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2, the evidence need show only that a person subject to the provisions of that statute possessed an instrument which was designed, made, and intended to expel a projectile by means of an explosion. It is not necessary that the Commonwealth prove the instrument was `operable,' `capable' of being fired, or had the `actual capacity to do serious harm.' Id. The firearm, ammunition magazine, and bullets that Officer Wisniewski recovered from Jones' vehicle were introduced as evidence at Jones' trial. Jones' statement that he bought the gun on the street was also introduced. Officer Wisniewski testified that the item recovered from Jones' trunk was a firearm, and he described how he unloaded the firearm and made it safe. The trial judge, while holding the firearm, stated: This is a real gun ... [A]lso part of the evidence are real bullets along with [an ammunition] clip. This is a gun. The trial court's judgment was not plainly wrong, as the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the item recovered from Jones' vehicle was designed, made, and intended to expel a projectile by means of an explosion. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.