Can I Beat a VUFA § 6106 Charge If I Didn’t Know About the Gun?

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Many people are arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm without a license (VUFA § 6106) even when the gun wasn’t actually on them. It may have been found in a car, a bag, or a house that actually belonged to someone else. In these cases, the prosecution proceeds based on the idea of constructive possession. But constructive possession can be confusing. Naturally, many clients ask:

“If the gun wasn’t mine, and I didn’t even know it was there, how can they charge me?”

The answer lies in a concept called constructive possession, and beating a VUFA 6106 charge in this situation often depends on whether the Commonwealth can prove that you knew about the gun and intended to control it.

1. What Is 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106?
Section 6106 makes it a crime to carry a concealed firearm without a valid license outside your home or place of business. If you actually have the gun on your person, and you don’t have a license, that’s a clear-cut 6106 violation. But many cases involve constructive possession, meaning the gun was not on the defendant directly. The statute also makes it a crime to have a gun in a car without a license. But again, if someone else left a gun in the car and you didn’t know about it, how were you supposed to avoid getting charged?

2. What Is Constructive Possession?
Constructive possession means that you didn’t physically have the gun on you, but you had:
- Knowledge that it was there, and
- The intent and ability to control it

It is not enough to just know about it or be near it. You have to known about it AND have the intent and power to control the gun. Constructive possession really means that the gun is basically yours - even if you don’t permanently or legally own it.

3. So How Do You Beat a Constructive Possession Case?
The key defense is lack of knowledge and control. Your lawyer’s goal is often to show reasonable doubt that you even knew the gun was there, let alone that you intended to possess it.

Potential defense strategies we may use could include:
- Shared access: The gun was in a car or home shared by multiple people, so it did not belong to the defendant.
- No fingerprints or DNA: There is no objective, forensic evidence tying you to the weapon.
- No incriminating statements: You didn’t admit to ownership or control. In fact, you may have expressed surprise that it was there and been very cooperative with the officer. For example, why would someone consent to a search if they knew the police were going to find an illegal gun?
- Bad stop or search: Your rights were violated during the stop, and we attorney can file a motion to suppress and ask the judge to exclude the evidence.

4. The Commonwealth Has the Burden of Proof
The DA must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they must prove that you knowingly possessed the gun. If you never touched the weapon, never claimed it, and there’s no forensic or circumstantial evidence linking you to it, a judge or jury may find the case too weak to convict if the gun could have been possessed by someone else.

5. Real-Life Examples Where Constructive Possession Fails
Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly held that mere proximity to a gun is not enough. Examples of defense wins include:
- A gun under the seat in a car with multiple occupants
- A firearm found in a house where the defendant was merely present
- A bag with a gun placed near the defendant but with no evidence of ownership

Each of these scenarios presents an opportunity to argue that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden.

6. Don’t Assume You Have to Plead Guilty
Just because you’re charged with a VUFA § 6106 violation doesn’t mean the case is open-and-shut. The law gives you the benefit of the doubt, and your lawyer’s job is to hold the Commonwealth to its burden of proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.  

PA Superior Court: Back Seat Passenger Not Automatically in Possession of Drugs and Guns in the Front of Car

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Parrish, reversing the defendant’s conviction for Possession with the Intent to Deliver (“PWID”), Conspiracy, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Paraphernalia, and gun charges such as Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act Section 6106. In Parrish, the Superior Court found that the evidence was insufficient to convict Parrish of the gun and drug charges because Parrish was merely the back seat passenger in a car which had guns and drugs in the front of the car.  

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Parrish

Parrish involved a motor vehicle stop. Police pulled a car over in Luzerne County for having illegally tinted windows. The vehicle pulled over on command, but as police approached the car, they noticed that it was rocking back and forth as if people were moving around inside of it. They could not see what caused the rocking because of the tinted windows. When the police got up to the car, the driver of the car rolled down the window. The officers immediately smelled marijuana and saw a plastic bag containing marijuana in plain view. They also saw the driver straddling the center console between the two front seats and the grip of a silver handgun protruding from under the front passenger seat. Obviously, that is a strange place for the driver of the car to sit. They saw the defendant, Parrish, seated behind the driver’s seat with his hands on the headrest of the driver’s seat.

Because they saw drugs and a gun in plain view, the officers immediately arrested the driver and Parrish. They searched the entire car. They found a black bag on the passenger side in the front of the car. That bag contained a loaded gun, 250 packets of heroin, 12 packets of methamphetamine, a baggie of loose heroin, two scales, and other drug paraphernalia and ammunition. They found marijuana on the passenger-side door and a .40 caliber handgun protruding from underneath the front passenger-side seat. The glove compartment contained an extra magazine of bullets, and in the trunk, they found a bulletproof vest. They found $1,335 in cash on the defendant and $2,168 on the driver. Parrish cooperated with the police during his arrest. He gave his real name, and he did not attempt to run.

Gun and Drug Charges Based on Constructive Possession

Police charged Parrish with various drug and gun charges, as well as Receiving Stolen Property. Before trial, the court separated the felon in possession of a firearm charge from the remaining charges so that the jury would not be prejudiced by knowing that the defendant had a prior criminal record. The defendant then proceeded by way of jury trial, and the jury convicted him of all charges.

At trial, police testified to the above facts. They also confirmed that Parrish was not the registered owner of the car, and he did not have a key to the glove compartment or trunk. Police also believed that based on the positions of the men in the car, the defendant was probably not the driver. They did not test any of the items for fingerprints or DNA. The Commonwealth also presented an expert witness to testify that based on the totality of the circumstances, the drugs in the bag were likely for sale and possessed with the intent to deliver.

In this case, the defense presented evidence, as well. The defendant called a friend to testify that he had been at a party at the friend’s house all afternoon on the day of the arrest. Parrish stayed at the party until approximately 2 am. The friend then asked the driver of the car to drive the defendant home. When the defendant left the party, he was not carrying a satchel or any kind of bag. The friend also saw defendant lay down in the back seat when the defendant got into the car. The jury convicted the defendant of all charges, and the trial court sentenced him to 88 to 176 months of incarceration in state prison.

The Appeal of the Criminal Case

The defendant filed post-sentence motions for reconsideration of the sentence, for a new trial, and for discovery which the prosecution had apparently not provided prior to trial. The trial court denied those motions, and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. On appeal, the defendant raised four issues:

1. whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions,

2. whether the trial court should have awarded a new trial based on the weight of the evidence,

3. whether the court abused its discretion in allowing one of the police officers to testify as an expert witness that the fact that there were two guns in the car meant that one probably belonged to the defendant, and

4. that the sentence was illegal because the court ordered a restitution payment in a case with no victim.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court only addressed the first issue because it resolved the case in the defendant's favor. The court noted that sufficiency of the evidence claims involve viewing all of the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and determining whether there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, a conviction may be sustained entirely based on circumstantial evidence, but a jury is not permitted to simply guess. 

Here, the jury convicted Parrish of both gun charges and drug charges. Both types of charges required the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Parrish possessed the illegal items. Because the items were not physically on him, the prosecution’s case depended on a constructive possession theory. Possession can be found by proving actual possession, constructive possession, or joint constructive possession. Constructive possession exists when the defendant has the power to control the contraband and the intent to exercise that control. It may be proven by circumstantial evidence. At the same time, the defendant’s mere presence at the place where contraband is found or secreted is insufficient, standing alone, to prove that he exercised dominion or control over the items. Location and proximity to contraband alone are thus not conclusive of guilt. Instead, the Commonwealth must be able to prove at least that a defendant knew of the existence and location of the contraband.

Here, the court reversed the conviction because the defendant was sitting in the back of the car and all of the guns and drugs were in the front. Further, the evidence established that Parrish was not carrying any type of bag when he entered the car, he did not have the keys to the car, and he was not the owner or operator of it. There was no evidence that he had ever been seated in either of the car’s front seats. Neither of the recovered firearms was registered to him, and the police had failed to test any of the items for fingerprints or DNA. The Commonwealth also failed to present any evidence whatsoever that the defendant knew of the contents of the black bag in the front because the bag was opaque. The court also rejected the idea that the defendant could have moved from the front of the vehicle to the back due to his height and weight and the size of the vehicle. The court also ignored the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert witness, which was likely improper, and it ultimately reversed the defendant’s conviction.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

Constructive possession is an issue that often comes up in gun cases and drug cases. In many cases involving traffic stops, the contraband in the vehicle is not actually physically on the defendant. In these types of cases, there are often defenses based on constructive possession because the prosecution may not be able to prove who in the car, if anyone, possessed the prohibited items. Even where the drugs or guns are in the actual possession of the defendant, there may be constitutional defenses to the search and seizure of the vehicle and its occupants. If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation for contraband recovered during a car stop, we can help. We offer a free criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer today.