The accused applied for a directed verdict on a charge of robbery with a firearm at the close of the Crown’s case.
The firearm was never recovered and had not been discharged during the robbery.
The court considered whether there was any evidence capable of supporting a jury finding that the object used during the robbery met the definition of a firearm under s. 2 of the Criminal Code.
Witness testimony describing the object, its apparent metal construction, its use to strike the victim, and threats to shoot provided circumstantial evidence capable of supporting that inference.
The court held that this evidence, if believed, could permit a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the item was a firearm.
