333 A.3d 417
Pa. Super. Ct.2025Background
- Jonathan McIntyre, previously convicted of several violent felonies, was found to have taken and hidden a firearm belonging to a family member while living at his uncle's residence after parole.
- McIntyre was charged and convicted by a jury of violating 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1), which prohibits possession of firearms by persons convicted of certain offenses.
- At trial, McIntyre admitted to physically possessing and burying the gun but argued his intent was to remove it from the house due to parole restrictions and fear for his safety, not to exercise ongoing control.
- After the conviction, McIntyre’s post-sentence motions raised, for the first time, constitutional challenges to § 6105, alleging it was invalid under recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence (Bruen and Rahimi) and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- On appeal, he also challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the denial of a justification instruction, alleged trial court errors, and prosecutorial misconduct, among other claims.
- The Superior Court reviewed the case upon remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, with instructions to consider the intervening decision in United States v. Rahimi.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 6105 under Bruen/Rahimi | Section 6105 is facially and as-applied unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, especially after Bruen/Range | Bruen does not extend to felons; Heller recognized "presumptively lawful" felon bans | Section 6105 is constitutional; Bruen inapplicable to felons |
| State constitutional and as-applied challenges to § 6105 | Section 6105 violates the PA Constitution and is unconstitutional as applied to McIntyre | Claims not properly preserved at trial or in Rule 1925(b) statement | Claims waived for lack of preservation |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (possession of firearm) | McIntyre lacked the intent to possess since he was trying to relinquish, not exercise control over, the gun | McIntyre admitted to physical possession; intent to control shown | Evidence sufficient; physical possession undisputed |
| Denial of justification instruction | McIntyre was entitled to a justification instruction due to intent to avoid harm, no intent to unlawfully possess | No plausible offer of proof; facts do not support justification | Instruction not warranted under the case facts |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Closing remarks comparing McIntyre to a pirate were religiously prejudicial | No objection at trial, and comments unrelated to religion | Claim waived for failure to object |
| Other trial court errors | Various errors regarding evidentiary rulings and pretrial motions | Issues either undeveloped or not preserved | Most claims waived or without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (set new test for Second Amendment challenges, focusing on history and text)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual Second Amendment right, but with lawful regulatory exceptions, including felon dispossession)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (upheld firearms prohibition for persons subject to domestic violence orders as consistent with Second Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2011) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Miklos, 159 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2017) (addressed justification defense for prohibited persons possessing a firearm)