Com. v. Wylie, R., 419 MDA 2017

Police stopped a car after smelling burnt marijuana; Wylie was seated in the rear. Officers observed cigar pack and plastic bags; when handcuffing him he attempted to flee and was subdued. A handgun fell from his waistband.
The handgun’s manufacturer/serial number had deep scratches and was difficult to read; officers recovered heroin (72 glassine envelopes), cash, phone, and a small amount of marijuana.
Wylie was tried in a bench trial and convicted of multiple counts including possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer’s number (18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.2) and firearms offenses and drug offenses.
The trial court sentenced Wylie to an aggregate term of 6–12 years’ imprisonment (including 3–6 years for § 6110.2), with several counts concurrent or merged.
On appeal Wylie argued insufficiency of evidence as to alteration (serial number still legible) and that the Commonwealth failed to prove mens rea required by § 6110.2. The Superior Court vacated the § 6110.2 conviction for lack of proof of culpability, affirmed the remaining convictions, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that firearm manufacturer number was altered	Commonwealth: photos and firearm showed deep abrasion sufficient to prove alteration	Wylie: serial number remained legible to naked eye; no expert proved alteration	Held: Evidence of deep scratches and abrasion was sufficient to show the number was altered or changed under § 6110.2
Mens rea requirement for § 6110.2	Commonwealth: standard jury instruction requires knowledge or recklessness; can infer recklessness from loaded gun	Wylie: statute silent as to mens rea, but traditional culpability applies; no proof he knew or was reckless about alteration	Held: § 302 requires proof of intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; Commonwealth failed to prove Wylie knew or recklessly disregarded the alteration, so conviction vacated
Remedy where conviction vacated but other counts affirmed and sentence was consecutive	Commonwealth: if instructional/elemental error, new trial may be appropriate	Wylie: sought dismissal of § 6110.2 count	Held: Vacated § 6110.2 conviction (no retrial on that count); affirmed other convictions; remanded for resentencing due to disrupted sentencing scheme

Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d 257 (Pa. Super. 2016) (expert testimony showed mechanical abrasion rendered number illegible without magnification; supported conviction)
Commonwealth v. Pond, 846 A.2d 699 (Pa. Super. 2004) (mens rea may be inferred from circumstances; if Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of culpability remand for new trial may be required when instructions omitted element)
Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 924 A.2d 636 (Pa. 2007) (absence of express mens rea in statute does not necessarily eliminate culpability requirement)
Commonwealth v. Storey, 167 A.3d 750 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Conaway, 105 A.3d 755 (Pa. Super. 2014) (vacating one count in multi-count case that affected consecutive sentence requires remand for resentencing)