Commonwealth v. Muhammad

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed Rasheed Muhammad’s conviction for carrying a firearm without a license under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106. The Court held that the jury’s negative response to a special interrogatory asking whether Muhammad possessed and controlled the firearm did not negate the conviction because Section 6106 does not require proof of both possession and control. The Court also formally proscribed the future use of the special-interrogatory procedure employed in this case for resolving the charge of persons not to possess firearms.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Muhammad carried a firearm in a vehicle, was not in his abode or fixed place of business, and lacked a valid license to carry a firearm.
2. The jury's negative answer did not invalidate the Section 6106 conviction because the interrogatory asked conjunctively whether Muhammad possessed and had the firearm under his control, while Section 6106 does not require proof that the defendant both possessed and controlled the firearm.
3. Trial courts should not use the special-interrogatory procedure employed in this case for the persons-not-to-possess-firearms charge; they should use less problematic procedures, such as bifurcation, to prevent disclosure of a defendant's criminal history.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Muhammad's conviction for carrying a firearm without a license under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 when the jury answered "no" to a special interrogatory asking whether he possessed and had under his control the firearm.
2. Whether the jury's negative answer to the compound possession-and-control interrogatory created an inconsistency requiring reversal of the Section 6106 conviction.
3. Whether special interrogatories of the type used in this criminal trial should be permitted in future cases involving persons not to possess firearms.

Disposition

affirmed