A solemn mood fell over the Supreme Court yesterday when the jury in the trial of a Sandys man accused of armed robbery was told it had a ?sacred function? to arrive at the truth.

Defence Counsel Victoria Pearman told the eight-woman three-man jury there was nothing simple about the case and that the evidence must be carefully considered.

Her client Denton Jermaine Parris denies robbing Gilbert Clayton Smith of $150 and fending him off with a 12-inch knife on March 5 last year.

In her address Ms Pearman said the events of March 5 could be described as a drug deal gone bad, and that there was no hard evidence to demonstrate that Parris had hidden a 12-inch knife in his clothing and brandished it at Mr. Smith.

She said her client went to the Police and told his side of the story and admitted to using drugs.

?He?s come here and told us what happened, in all of it?s ugly detail he stated to the court, you know what, on that day I was selling marijuana.?

Ms. Pearman pointed out that one of the Police officers dealing with the case did not tell the court that Mr. Smith spoke about being robbed by a knife.

She said the defendant?s mother Linda Thomas, who was at her home on the night of the alleged incident remembered the night of March 5 clearly and said a man in a maroon car who she recognised by sight had come to her house on Cooks Hill on March 5 last year.

?I?ll suggest to you that Gilbert Smith is a nice man, but he?s no angel. You have to seriously and meticulously examine the evidence,? she said.

?He didn?t tell the Police how well he knew Parris. He was keeping things from you because he doesn?t want to be associated with Parris.?

She pointed out that during Smith?s testimony he eventually admitted to being in the area of ?21Jump St.? the name, given to Cochrane Lane.

?He was frustrated, the defendant told the court that Gilbert Smith was acting kind of desperate.

?But the defendant said roll out of the yard, he had said there was a piece for me but I couldn?t hand it out in the yard,? she continued.

Senior Crown Counsel Lloyd Rayney told the jury that the facts of what happened that night in the car were very simple. ?An accused man flags down a driver, they drive to their destination, they talk in the car, the accused sees money and as the car stops he grabs it and gets out. Mr. Smith does what most people do,? he added. ?He tries to get it back.?

Mr. Rayney said the Crown?s case was about a simple straightforward set of facts and the jury would have to use their common sense to determine for themselves to assess the witness.

?Mr. Smith, didn?t he strike you as someone who is straightforward, the kind of guy who isn?t cunning, doesn?t have much street smarts. He?s a what you see is what you get kind of guy,? continued Rayney. ?Did his testimony not strike you as the truth.?

He pointed out that Mr. Smith drove straight to the Police station to report the incident because he had been robbed at knife point. As he reminded the jury of Mr. Smith?s testimony, Mr. Rayney said Parris had faced previous convictions of fraud and theft which are factors relating his credibility.

Mr. Rayney said in Parris? evidence he initially said he went with Smith to drop off the DVDs which raises questions about how desperate Smith was to receive the quarter of marijuana he had allegedly driven Parris to Cooks Hill Road to receive.

He added that the Crown?s case could be supported by the small details such as the fact that Parris told the court Smith had abandoned his car the second time they returned to his mother?s house.

?Why would Smith leave his own car? The Crown?s case is that when the knife was held up to his face he left.?

The case continues today.