The Deadly Weapon Enhancement Is Cases Where Defendant Held a Gun During Course of Crime

Does the Deadly Weapon Enhancement Apply to a Case Where the Defendant Held a Gun or it was Within His Immediate Physical Control During Course of Crime ? In Commonwealth v. Bowen, 417 Pa. Super. 340, 612 A.2d 512 (Pa.Super. 1992) six co-conspirators robbed three unarmed men outside a Philadelphia restaurant. The perpetrators all brandished guns and commenced the assault by announcing, "This is a stick-up." 612 A.2d at 513. One of the victims climbed into the backseat of his car. He was followed by three assailants, two of whom climbed into the backseat on either side of the victim and visibly displayed firearms. A third assailant demanded the victim's money and jacket from the front seat. The victim testified that he could not see whether this assailant had a gun in his possession at this time. However, the victim did testify that earlier, all six assailants were armed at the onset of the robbery. The Court held that "the deadly weapon enhancement was applicable to this case; either on the basis that appellee held a gun during the course of the crime or that the gun was within the immediate physical control of the appellee." 612 A.2d at 515.