Courtney v. Com., 706 S.E.2d 344

Nelson, driving home at night, was approached by a masked man who demanded she get back in her car and claimed to have a gun.
Nelson did not see a gun but believed Courtney had a firearm and feared for her life; Courtney took Nelson's purses and phone and fled.
Rittenhouse chased the second man; Courtney kicked Rittenhouse and left in a waiting vehicle, which police later stopped.
Police recovered Nelson's phone and purses; in the vehicle, officers found hooded sweatshirts, bandanas, and a toy pistol described as a cap gun by an officer.
Trial court, sans jury, convicted Courtney of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a robbery under §§ 18.2-58 and 18.2-53.1.
Court of Appeals affirmed the use-of-firearm conviction, relying on Courtney’s statement that he had a gun and Nelson’s belief she was threatened.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supports § 18.2-53.1 conviction	Courtney argues evidence shows only a toy gun; no actual firearm appeared.	Courtney contends the Commonwealth failed to prove use or display of a firearm as defined by statute.	Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient under § 18.2-53.1.

Powell v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 233 (Va. 2004) (sufficient even when victim did not see a firearm; defendant claimed no pistol)
Holloman v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 196 (Va. 1980) (firearm includes appearance of firing capability even if no projectile)
Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 215 (Va. 1994) (Commonwealth must prove actual firearm in possession and used or displayed)
Alger v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 255 (Va. 2004) (statutory interpretation guiding plain-language reading)