18.2-300(A). Because Addison and appellant shared the common intent to kill: they shared the common intent to commit all of the elements of [murder], including the use of such force [or] violence ... as would be expedient for the accomplishment of their purpose. An incidental probable consequence of such a shared intent was the use of a weapon, including a firearm if one should be at hand. In such circumstances, the law is well settled in Virginia that each co-actor is responsible for the acts of the others, and may not interpose his personal lack of intent as a defense. Carter v. Commonwealth, 232 Va. 122, 126, 348 S.E.2d 265, 267-68 (1986) (imposing vicarious criminal responsibility for use of a firearm by another); see also Cortner v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 557, 281 S.E.2d 908 (1981) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons set forth above, we find that
holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used holding unarmed codefendant guilty for use of a firearm during the commission of robbery and abduction holding that an enhancement for an express threat of death may not be applied to the sentence for robbery when the threat is related to the use of the firearm and the defendant has a  924c sentence for the same firearm holding that code  182531 criminalizing use or display of a firearm in the commission of a felony included use of an instrument that gives the appearance of being a firearm holding that in a prosecution for possession of an unregistered firearm evidence of an armed robbery committed with the firearm was admissible