The gun could have been disposed of, so it can't be ruled out. If witnesses say a gun was used, that is enough.
2006-10-14 13:09:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The mere implication of a gun during a robbery constitutes armed robbery. No gun has to be recovered or even have been present. The judge should pronounce sentence just the way he would have if the gun were in evidence.
2006-10-14 20:05:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dino4747 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The gun does not have to be discovered and entered into evidence if there is enough other evidence to show the suspect had a weapon at the crime.
A witness or several witness.
The crime on video
It is not uncommom at all for the gun used in the actual crime not to be found
2006-10-14 20:29:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Armed robbery has been redefined to include any means the perpetrator uses to project that he is armed with a weapon/bomd, even if he does not display it, like poking his finger out in a coat pocket, or have fake explosives attached to his body.
2006-10-14 20:31:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by WC 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The judge should adjudicate the case based on the evidence presented by the prosecuter.
2006-10-14 20:23:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The judge should follow the law and any sentencing guidelines. If there is sufficient evidence to convict, then the defendant should be convicted, gun or no gun.
InIt2WinIt
2006-10-18 01:15:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by JAMES11A 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with the two guys before me.
2006-10-14 20:20:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Nels 7
·
0⤊
0⤋