Opinion ID: 1299978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of a Firearm in Commission of a Felony.

Text: Cortner contends that because he never actually held the gun used in the robbery he should not have been convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a felony. Because the evidence proved that Chears had possession of the gun at all times, Cortner argues that he could not properly be convicted under Code § 18.2-53.1 and that the trial court erred when it refused his motion to strike the evidence in support thereof. The Commonwealth argues that it was not required to prove that Cortner actually held the gun to establish his guilt under Code § 18.2-53.1. Code § 18.2-53.1 makes it unlawful for any person to use ... any pistol, shotgun, rifle, or other firearm or display such weapon in a threatening manner while committing... abduction. Code § 18.2-18 permits in the case of every felony, every principal in the second degree to be tried and convicted as if he were a principal in the first degree. (Emphasis added.) The capital murder statute contains one express limitation upon this legislative dictate. Code § 18.2-18 does not permit a principal in the second degree to be convicted of capital murder. See Johnson v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 146, 255 S.E.2d 525 (1979). Although Cortner never actually possessed the gun used in the robberies, he acted in concert with Chears, who did display the weapon. With the use of the gun, Cortner and Chears robbed both Harvey and Scott and abducted Mitchell. Thus, Cortner effectively used the revolver and was thereby subject to the terms of Code § 18.2-53.1. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in its refusal to strike the evidence. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the judgment of the lower court will be Affirmed.