731 S.E.2d 622
Va. Ct. App.2012Background
- Jordan, a convicted felon, was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under Va. Code § 18.2-308.2.
- The incident occurred when 13-year-old Arrowood drove his father to a 7-Eleven; Jordan approached and pointed an object at Arrowood’s temple.
- Arrowood described the object as a small silver semi-automatic pistol, possibly a Raven, and fled; no firearm was recovered.
- At trial, Arrowood identified Jordan as the assailant; the Commonwealth presented Arrowood’s testimony and a certified felony conviction against Jordan.
- The trial court denied Jordan’s motion to strike the evidence; the jury convicted him of the gun-possession offense.
- Jordan appeals, arguing the evidence does not prove the object was a firearm under § 18.2-308.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proves the object was a firearm under § 18.2-308.2 | Commonwealth: object fits 'firearm' under Armstrong, totality supports conviction | Jordan: object may have appeared to be a firearm but lacked ability to expel a projectile; under 308.2 narrow definition | Affirmed; evidence sufficient to prove firearm designed to expel a projectile |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 573 (2002) (defines firearm for § 18.2-308.2; requires design to expel a projectile)
- Redd v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 256 (1999) (circumstantial evidence can support firearm determination; implied assertion may suffice)
- Startin v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 374 (2011) (distinguishes broad vs. narrow firearm definitions; replica not always § 18.2-308.2 firearm)
- Copeland v. Commonwealth, 52 Va.App. 529 (2008) (certificate of analysis can vacate § 18.2-308.2 conviction if not designed to expel projectile)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 33 Va.App. 735 (2000) (circumstantial evidence can prove functioning weapon when context implies capability)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 171 (2009) (reliability of eyewitness and accompanying evidence to establish firearm function)
- Bowling v. Commonwealth, 51 Va.App. 102 (2007) (totality-of-the-evidence approach to prove offense)
- Holloman v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 196 (1980) (purpose of § 18.2-53.1 to deter fear of harm; broader appearance concept discussed)