At times, previously decided cases have not adequately explained the function of the rebuttable presumption in § 13A-8-41(b). For example, in Dick v. State, 677 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996), a case in which it was undisputed that the appellant was armed with a .357 pistol during the robbery and displayed it to the victim, in explaining that threatening the use of a deadly weapon is sufficient proof of the use of force to prove that element under Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-8-43, the court stated: "'This court has held on several occasions that it is not necessary to prove that a defendant displayed a gun during a robbery or that he actually had a gun to sustain a conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. Miller v. State, 431 So.2d 586 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Bender v. State, 420 So.2d 843 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); James v. State, 405 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr. App. 1981).

Section 13A-8-41(b), however, provides that "any verbal or other representation by the defendant that he is then and there so armed, is prima facie evidence under subsection (a) of this section that he was so armed." Thus, an accused need not actually be armed with a deadly weapon to be convicted of first-degree robbery under § 13A-8-41(a)(1); he need only represent that he is so armed. See, e.g., Dick v. State, 677 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996). Further, belief by the victim that the defendant has a weapon is sufficient. Stallings v. State, 793 So.2d 867, 868 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000); Porter v. State, 666 So.2d 106, 108 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); Dinkins v. State, 584 So.2d 932, 933 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991).

NRS 200.380(1). Generally, the mere presence of a gun is enough to find a threat of force sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery. See, e.g., Dick v. State, 677 So.2d 1267, 1269 (Ala.Crim.App.1996)(holding that "[w]ielding a gun ... constitutes both the use of force and the threat of force as a matter of law." (internal quotations omitted)).

Other cases have made this error. See, e.g., Dick v. State, 677 So.2d 1267, 1270 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (noting that “ ‘[t]his court has held on several occasions that it is not necessary to prove that a defendant displayed a gun during a robbery or that he actually had a gun to sustain a conviction for Robbery in the First Degree’ ” (quoting Stewart v. State, 443 So.2d 1362, 1363–64 (Ala.Crim.App.1983)) (emphasis added)); Holt v. State, 960 So.2d 726, 739 n. 6 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (stating that “an accused need not actually be armed with a deadly weapon to be convicted of robbery in the first degree”). For an analysis of this problem, see Lucas v. State, 45 So.3d 380, 394–98 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (Welch, J., dissenting).

NRS 200.380(1). Generally, the mere presence of a gun is enough to find a threat of force sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery. See, e.g., Dick v. State, 677 So. 2d 1267, 1269 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that "[w]ielding a gun . . . constitutes both the use of force and the threat of force as a matter of law." (internal quotations omitted)).

Thus, an accused need not actually be armed with a deadly weapon to be convicted of robbery in the first degree under § 13A-8-41(a)(1); he need only represent that he is so armed. See, e.g., Dick v. State, 677 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996). In this case, Holt was charged with threatening the imminent use of force while being armed with a pistol pursuant to § 13A-8-41(a)(1).