Commonwealth v. Peters, A., Aplt., 218 A.3d 1206

On Aug. 16–17, 2011, Peters was visiting Jesse Hicks; Hicks showed $700 which he put in his pocket and later refused to give to Peters’ father. Peters texted Hicks “You’re going to get it.”
Peters let two men into Hicks’ apartment without his consent; one man carried a .22 handgun, chased Hicks into his bedroom, shot and severely injured him, and the men stole Hicks’ $700. The shooters were never identified or arrested.
Peters was charged with multiple offenses including carrying a concealed firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S. §6106(a)(1)); parties stipulated Peters had no license. A jury convicted her on all counts and she received an aggregate 13–30 year sentence.
The Superior Court affirmed, treating the §6106 conviction as grounded on constructive possession (finding Peters had power and intent to control the gun).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review limited to whether the evidence sufficed to convict Peters under §6106 via constructive-possession theory and whether concealment on another person could satisfy the statute.
The Court reversed the §6106 conviction, holding that (1) constructive-possession proof here did not establish Peters concealed the weapon on her person, and (2) the statutory phrase “concealed on or about his person” cannot be satisfied by concealment on another individual’s person.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Peters)	Held
Whether constructive possession can sustain a §6106 conviction where another person physically carried and used the firearm	Constructive-possession doctrine can extend §6106 to persons who planned or participated in the crime and thus had power/intent to control the gun	Constructive possession is inappropriate for a singular weapon physically possessed and used exclusively by another; §6106 targets carrying a concealed firearm on one’s person	Reversed — constructive possession cannot support a §6106 conviction here because evidence did not show Peters had the gun concealed on her person or the requisite dominion/control
Whether “concealed on or about his person” may be satisfied by concealment on another’s person	A concealing accomplice or shared-access scenarios can meet the statute; concealment need not be literally on defendant’s body if defendant constructively possessed the gun	The statute’s plain text requires concealment on the defendant’s own person; concealment on another’s person cannot satisfy §6106	Rejected — concealment must be on the defendant’s person; liability cannot be premised on concealment on a co-actor’s person by constructive-possession theory

Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 597 Pa. 307, 951 A.2d 307 (Pa. 2008) (review standard: view evidence favorably to Commonwealth as verdict winner)
Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 510 Pa. 305, 507 A.2d 1212 (Pa. 1986) (constructive possession requires nexus showing power and intent to exercise dominion and control)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 611 Pa. 381, 26 A.3d 1078 (Pa. 2011) (constructive possession may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Macolino, 503 Pa. 201, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (dominion-and-control test for constructive possession)
Commonwealth v. Knox, 629 Pa. 467, 105 A.3d 1194 (Pa. 2014) (observing §6106’s focus on carrying a firearm concealed on one’s person and limits on accomplice liability for that offense)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (Due Process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element)
Commonwealth v. Carroll, 510 Pa. 299, 507 A.2d 819 (Pa. 1986) (discussion of constructive-possession in narcotics context)
State v. Jones, 45 P.3d 1062 (Wash. 2002) (authority that dominion includes ability to reduce item to actual possession immediately)
People v. Sinclair, 19 P.2d 23 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933) (example of constructive possession where defendant directed passenger to discard contraband)