What constitutes "use" of a firearm in a carjacking context?

"Although the use of a firearm connotes something more than a bare potential for use, there need not be conduct which actually produces harm but only conduct which produces a fear of harm or force by means or display of a firearm in aiding the commission of one of the specified felonies." (People v. Chambers (1972) 7 Cal.3d 666, 672.) Obviously, the display of a firearm, when directly coupled with a threat to use the firearm, may constitute "use." (See, e.g., People v. Dominguez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th

Page 15

410, 421 [defendant found guilty of carjacking with firearm use enhancement for holding barrel of gun against victim's neck, coupled with threats to kill].). However, firearm use need not "be strictly contemporaneous with the base felony. '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 [the underlying] offense. Thus, a jury could reasonably conclude that although defendant's presence with the victims was sporadic, the control and fear created by his initial firearm display continued throughout the encounter.' [Citation.] Accordingly, defendant's jury was [properly] instructed that '[a] gun need not be continually displayed during the course of a crime in order for it to be personally used within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5, [s]ubdivision (a).' " (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 807.)