People v. Masbruch

In People v. Masbruch (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1001, the defendant argued he did not use a gun in the commission of a sexual assault "because he displayed it only at the outset of his criminal activity, approximately one hour before he committed the sex offenses, and he left the victim several times during the interim to commit crimes in other parts of the house." (Masbruch, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1006.) The Supreme Court used a visual metaphor to reject the defendant's argument: "In considering whether a gun use occurred, the jury may consider a 'video' of the entire encounter; it is not limited to a 'snapshot' of the moments immediately preceding a sex offense." (Id. at p. 1011.) The jury was not required to find that the victim had an awareness of the gun at every minute of criminal activity in order for the gun to be used in the commission of various offenses. (Id. at p. 1012.)