The First Appellate District affirmed a judgment of conviction. The court held that a pinpoint instruction regarding the inferences that could be drawn from robbery victims’ inability to identify the robber’s gun impermissibly lightened the prosecution’s burden to prove the use of a firearm.
Samuel Hunter was charged with three counts of robbery and a single count of burglary following a bank robbery. It was alleged as an enhancement that Hunter personally used a firearm during his commission of the criems. At jury trial, Hunter conceded having committed the robbery but challenged the contention that the gun he displayed during the robbery was real. The victims all testified to having seen the gun, having believed it was real, and having feared for their lives during the robbery.
