PA Supreme Court: Gun's Serial Number Must Be Changed or Removed for Conviction of Possessing Firearm with Obliterated Serial Number

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Smith, holding that to convict a defendant of the crime of possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer’s number (“VUFA 6110.2”), the serial number must have been removed or changed in a “material way” that makes it look like a different number, in whole or in part, to the naked eye. This decision is significant because in Philadelphia (and in other parts of Pennsylvania), prosecutors will routinely charge defendants with VUFA 6110.2 when there is even the slightest mark on the serial number.  

Commonwealth v. Smith 

On June 12, 2016, Pennsylvania State Police troopers initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by the defendant. The defendant was stopped because his license plate was not illuminated. As the troopers approached the vehicle, they observed “furtive” movements by the vehicle’s occupants. The troopers requested the defendant’s license and registration, at which point either the defendant or his passenger opened the glovebox. When the glovebox was opened, the troopers observed a plastic vial containing marijuana. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a firearm, ammunition, and a clip under the driver’s seat. The manufacturer’s number on the firearm appeared to have been scratched, but it was still legible. 

The defendant was arrested and charged with VUFA 6110.2, firearms not to be carried without a license, receipt of stolen property, possession of a controlled substance, and various traffic offenses. At the defendant’s stipulated bench trial, the Commonwealth introduced photographs of the firearm, which showed that the manufacturer’s number had multiple scratch marks. The parties did not dispute that the number was still legible. The trial court noted that the serial number showed clear signs of intentional tampering and wearing of the serial number and that the number was “clearly abraded.” As such, the trial court determined that the serial number had been, at a minimum, altered from its original state. The defendant was then found guilty and sentenced to three to six years incarceration. The defendant then filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. 

The Defendant’s Appeal to the Superior Court 

The defendant appealed to the Superior Court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because the manufacturer’s number, although scratched, was legible to the naked eye and thus the Commonwealth failed to establish that the number was “altered, changed, removed, or obliterated” as required by VUFA 6110.2. Specifically, the defendant argued that to be convicted of VUFA 6110.2 the serial number must be illegible to the naked eye. The Superior Court unanimously rejected the defendant’s argument. The defendant then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear the defendant’s case. 

What is VUFA 6110.2?    

VUFA 6110.2 provides: “[n]o person shall possess a firearm which has had the manufacturer’s number integral to the frame or receiver altered, changed, removed, or obliterated.” Previous appellate decisions have required that the number’s alteration be man-made. In other words, if the number is naturally corroded, a defendant is not guilty of VUFA 6110.2 simply because he is in possession of a gun whose markings had become illegible due to natural causes. However, whether a serial number has worn away over time or been intentionally removed is not always clear.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and found that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him of VUFA 6110.2. In making its decision, the Court first analyzed the VUFA 6110.2 statute. The Court found that the term “altered” is capable of multiple reasonable interpretations and thus the term is ambiguous. Therefore, the Court then analyzed the legislative intent behind VUFA 6110.2. The Court opined that the Pennsylvania Legislature drafted VUFA 6110.2 because the manufacturer’s serial number is an important tool used by police officers in identifying the owner of weapons used in criminal offenses. To safeguard this tool, the legislature found it important to pass a law that prohibits individuals from altering, changing, removing, or obliterating these numbers. 

In the instant case, the serial numbers on the defendant’s gun were still visible. In fact, the Commonwealth conceded this fact at trial. Therefore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that to be convicted of VUFA 6110.2, the Commonwealth “must establish that the number was changed in a material way, such as by making it look like a different number, or that it was rendered illegible, in whole or in part, to the naked eye.” In this case, because the defendant’s gun’s serial number was not illegible, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of VUFA 6110.2. Therefore, his conviction on this charge will be vacated, and his case will be remanded for re-sentencing. 

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help. 

Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, illegal gun possession, Rape, and Murder. 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: Improper Admission of Hearsay Statement that Defendant Managed House of Prostitution Requires New Trial

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Lu, holding that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce a hearsay statement that the defendant, who was charged with promoting, managing, or supervising a house of prostitution, was the manager of the brothel. This case is important because it highlights the difference between inadmissible hearsay and statements which should not be admitted because they would violate a defendant’s right to confront his or her accusers under the confrontation clause.

The facts of Lu

In Lu, the defendant was charged with promoting, managing, or supervising a house of prostitution business under 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 5902(b)(1) and criminal conspiracy. Police testified that they received a complaint from the FBI regarding certain Back Page postings that suggested that underage girls may be involved in prostitution. After conducting some investigation, a Philadelphia Police Officer called the number advertised on the Back Page posting. An Asian female voice answered the phone and arranged for a meeting with the officer at a certain address on Rhawn Street. The officer was told that the business would not open until 2 am. He was also told by text that there were four young girls and that he could do whatever he wanted for certain prices.

Later that night, the officer went to the address in plainclothes and rang the doorbell. The defendant opened the door and waved the officer into the foyer. The defendant spoke with the officer in English and led the officer into a room where three Asian women in lingerie were sitting on a sofa. The defendant then walked the officer closer to the girls and motioned with an open hand as if he were presenting them to the officer. The officer asked, “wow, I pick?” to which the girls laughed, but the defendant remained silent. The officer chose one of the women and went with her to the third floor of the building. The woman escorted him to a bedroom, put a bag of condoms and lubricant on the night table, and counted the money that the officer had brought with him. The woman explicitly agreed to have oral or vaginal sex with the officer for money, and the officer then asked who the defendant was. The woman told the officer that the defendant was the manager.

The officer then called for the arrest team. They entered the building, arrested the defendant, recovered various phones, and also found $2,900. The officer then identified himself as a police officer for the first time.

The criminal trial

The defendant was arrested and charged with the above defenses. Prior to trial, his defense attorney filed a motion in limine in the trial court asking the court to preclude the statement that the defendant was the manager because the woman who made the statement was not present in court to testify. The court found that the statement was admissible pursuant to a hearsay exception for statements made by the defendant’s co-conspirators during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, although the defense objected on confrontation grounds as well, the court did not provide any analysis for how the statement could be admissible under the confrontation clause. The defendant was convicted at trial and sentenced to 3-6 months’ incarceration. He appealed to the Superior Court.

The Appeal

On appeal, the defendant argued not only that the statement was hearsay, but also that its admission violated his right to confront the witnesses against him. The Superior Court ultimately agreed with the defendant that the statement should not have been admitted because the defendant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the woman who made the statement. Whether or not the admission of a statement violates the Confrontation Clause generally depends on whether the statement is “testimonial.” Various appellate courts have held that statements are not testimonial when they are made to police or the first responders in order to obtain aid during an ongoing emergency. For this reason, the admission of 911 calls often does not violate the confrontation clause depending on the statement. However, when the statement is made not in response to an ongoing emergency but because police are simply investigating a potential crime, then the statement is typically considered testimonial and would be inadmissible at trial without the actual witness testifying. This is true even if the statement satisfies some exception to the rule against hearsay. Thus, a statement be admissible as non-hearsay or as a hearsay exception but still inadmissible under the confrontation clause.

The Superior Court reversed the defendant’s conviction. It found that the statement established that the defendant was the manager and that it was not made in response to any kind of ongoing emergency. Therefore, the statement was testimonial, and it should not have been admitted without the witness having to testify. Accordingly, the defendant will receive a new trial.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. 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: Adult Defendants Cannot Be Required to Register as Sex Offenders for Crimes Committed as Juveniles

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Haines, holding that adults may not be required to register as sex offenders when they are prosecuted and convicted for sex crimes that they committed while under the age of 18. This case is most likely to apply in situations where a defendant who was also a juvenile at the time is accused of committing some type of sex offense against another juvenile and the complainant then does not come forward until the defendant has become an adult. It is an important opinion which recognizes that children simply have not finished developing mentally prior to the age of 18 and so should not be punished as adults even when there is a delayed report of a sex offense.

The Facts of Haines

In Haines, the defendant pleaded guilty in 2017 to two counts of Indecent Assault of a person less than thirteen years of age. The charges related to incidents which occurred approximately ten years earlier when both the victims and the defendant were children. Specifically, the defendant was 14 or 15. The defendant pleaded guilty, but prior to sentencing, she moved to bar any sex offender registration requirement pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Commonwealth v. Muniz in which the Court held that SORNA registration is punitive.

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion and imposed sex offender registration requirements. The defendant appealed, arguing both that she could not be required to register under a statute which did not exist at the time of the offense as this would constitute an ex post facto violation and that the cruel and unusual punishment clause bars requiring an adult to register as a sex offender for a crime committed as a juvenile.

The Superior Court’s Opinion

The Superior Court agreed with the defendant on the juvenile issue. The court concluded that requiring an adult to register as a sex offender for crimes committed as a juvenile constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The Court noted that lifetime registration for juveniles who commit sex crimes and are prosecuted while they are still juveniles has already been found unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It further noted that the United States Supreme Court has recognized that mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants is also unconstitutional based on the inherent understanding of the fundamental differences between adults and children, children’s lack of maturity, and their undeveloped sense of responsibility leading to recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking.

Synthesizing these two opinions, the Court quickly concluded that had the defendant been adjudicated delinquent at the time of the offense, she would not have been registered to register as a sex offender. The fact that she was subsequently convicted as an adult does not change the fact that she was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offense. Therefore, she should not be held to an irrefutable presumption of re-offending even though she was not prosecuted until she had turned 26. Therefore, the Court reversed the portion of the sentence requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender.

This is an extremely important opinion as it is not uncommon for delayed reports of sex offenses to lead to prosecutions of adults for crimes committed when they were children. This opinion makes the collateral consequences of a conviction somewhat closer to what they would have been had there been a timely prosecution for the offense. As this case was decided by a three-judge panel of the Superior Court, it is very possible that the Court could grant en banc review or that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could review the decision.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. 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.

Attorney Goldstein Wins Aggravated Assault (F1) Jury Trial

Assault Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won a full acquittal in a jury trial on Aggravated Assault charges in the case of Commonwealth v. J.B. Prosecutors charged J.B. with Aggravated Assault (F1), Aggravated Assault (F2), Simple Assault, Possession of an Instrument of Crime, and Recklessly Endangering Another Person, for an incident in which J.B. cut the complainant on her face and hands with a knife. In J.B., the Commonwealth alleged that J.B. and the complainant were roommates who had gotten into a fight after a dispute relating to damage to the complainant’s car. At some point, the fight allegedly escalated from a fist fight when J.B. pulled a switchblade knife and began stabbing the complainant. The complainant then pulled out a machete and began assaulting J.B. with the machete. However, the complainant was the first person to call police, so the police arrested J.B. and recommended that charges be filed against her.

J.B. retained Attorney Goldstein for trial, and J.B. proceeded to trial in front of a Philadelphia jury on a theory of self-defense. Attorney Goldstein’s cross-examination of the complainant on her motive to have started the fight and then lied about it, the fact that she inflicted serious injuries on J.B., and the fact that she is the type of person who carries a machete around quickly convinced the jury that J.B. had acted in self-defense and that the complainant had really been the aggressor. Attorney Goldstein was able to successfully argue to the jury that the complainant had actually been the first person to pull a knife and then had simply won the race to the police and that the police had filed charges without even giving J.B. and her witness the opportunity to tell them what had really happened. Accordingly, the jury deliberated for approximately two hours before acquitting J.B. of all charges. J.B. will be eligible to have all of the charges expunged from her record.

The key to defense in this case was the evidence that J.B. had preserved shortly after the incident. Fortunately, J.B. had documented her injuries by taking high-quality photographs which were extremely compelling. The defense was also able to obtain a copy of the 911 call (which the police would otherwise destroy within thirty days), and the 911 call showed that J.B. had also called police and that police could be heard arresting her without giving her a chance to tell them what happened. Finally, J.B. had preserved important text messages between her and the complainant which showed that J.B. had been trying to resolve the car situation and made it more likely that the complainant was the aggressor. These key pieces of evidence illustrate the importance of speaking with one of our experienced criminal defense attorneys right away if you are facing criminal charges or may be under investigation. Had J.B. waited to retain counsel, this valuable evidence could have been lost. Fortunately, J.B. was fully acquitted of these serious assault charges.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. 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.