Commonwealth v. Scott
176 A.3d 283
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Police responded to a domestic-violence call and located Thomas Scott nearby; he was ordered to show his hands and was placed under arrest. A pat-down revealed a Sig Sauer handgun in a holster under his T-shirt; the shirt hung over the gun so it was completely concealed.
- Scott possessed an Act 235 (private security) certification card and worked in asset protection for a pawnshop and a clothing store; he testified he was on his way to a qualification course for seasonal public-safety work.
- At bench trial Scott conceded the firearm was concealed but testified the concealment was accidental (his shirt had become untucked when removing a sweatshirt) and he was unaware it was concealed.
- The trial court convicted Scott under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 (carrying a concealed firearm without a license) and sentenced him to 7–14 months; post-sentence motions were denied and Scott appealed.
- Scott argued (1) his Act 235 certification or employment qualified him for statutory exceptions to §6106, and (2) the Commonwealth failed to prove the requisite mens rea for concealment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Scott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 235 certification excuses §6106 liability | Act 235 does not substitute for PUFA license requirements | Act 235 certification permits carrying | Held for Commonwealth: Act 235 is not a substitute for a license under PUFA; Scott’s certification irrelevant |
| Whether Scott’s security employment fits §6106(b)(1) (“other law-enforcement officers”) | Exception limited to government law-enforcement | Scott: privately employed security is an “other law-enforcement officer” | Held for Commonwealth: ejusdem generis limits clause to government-employed officers; Scott does not qualify |
| Whether §6106(b)(6) (employees of business firms protecting valuables) applies | If carrying is "in discharge of duties" exception applies | Scott: carrying in course of employment (asset protection) or traveling to work-related qualification | Held: exception requires carrying while discharging duties protecting moneys/valuables; record showed Scott was not on duty protecting property, so exception failed |
| Whether concealment under §6106 is strict liability or requires mens rea | Concealment established liability; trial court treated concealment as strict liability | Scott: concealment element requires intent/knowledge/recklessness; accidental concealment insufficient | Held for Scott (in part): §6106 lacks explicit mens rea but default culpability (intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly) applies to all elements including concealment; trial court erred by treating concealment as strict liability; vacated and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 169 A.3d 1092 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Act 235 does not substitute for PUFA license)
- Commonwealth v. Moran, 104 A.3d 1136 (Pa. 2014) (§302 provides default mens rea where statute is silent)
- Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 832 A.2d 418 (Pa. 2003) (absolute criminal liability generally disfavored; look for legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Pond, 846 A.2d 699 (Pa. Super. 2004) (serious penalties suggest legislature did not dispense with mens rea)
- Commonwealth v. Pressley, 249 A.2d 345 (Pa. 1969) (distinguishes intent to do malicious injury from elements required under PUFA charge)
- Shafer Elec. & Constr. v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2014) (statutory interpretation standard of review de novo)
- Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth, 52 A.3d 1077 (Pa. 2012) (plain language is best evidence of legislative intent)