Commonwealth v. Smith, S., Aplt., 221 A.3d 631

Police stopped Shane C. Smith for a defective license-plate light; officers found marijuana and, under the driver’s seat, a handgun with scratched serial/manufacturer’s numbers.
Photographs at a stipulated bench trial showed multiple scratches on the manufacturer’s number, but the parties agreed the number remained legible to the naked eye.
Smith was convicted under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.2 (possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer’s number) and sentenced to 3–6 years.
The Superior Court affirmed, relying in part on Commonwealth v. (Darian) Smith and interpreting “alter” broadly to include abrading that changes appearance.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a scratched but still legible manufacturer’s number satisfies the statute’s terms.
The Court held the term “alter” ambiguous, construed penal provisions narrowly under the rule of lenity, and ruled that “alter” requires a material change (e.g., made to look like a different number) or rendering illegible to the naked eye; because Smith’s number remained legible, his conviction was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a scratched but legible manufacturer’s number violates 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.2 (possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer’s number).	Commonwealth: statute forbids possession of firearms whose manufacturer’s number has been “altered” or “changed”; illegibility is not required and scratches that make the number less clear suffice.	Smith: the number was legible to the naked eye; §6110.2 aims to prevent impairment of tracing, so scratches that do not materially change or render the number illegible do not violate the statute.	The Court: “alter” is ambiguous; interpret penal statute narrowly—requires a material change (e.g., makes number look different) or illegibility (in whole or part) to the naked eye. Because the number remained legible, conviction reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d 257 (Pa. Super. 2016) (abrading that made number illegible to naked eye held sufficient to prove alteration).
Commonwealth v. Ford, 175 A.3d 985 (Pa. Super. 2017) (reversed §6110.2 conviction where corrosion from natural causes—not intentional defacement—caused illegibility; discusses statute's purpose).
United States v. Adams, 305 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2002) (badly scratched but still readable serial number can satisfy federal prohibition; material impairment standard).
United States v. Harris, 720 F.3d 499 (4th Cir. 2013) (gouges/scratches that make a serial number less legible but not illegible constitute alteration for federal sentencing purposes).
Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 (1979) (explains rule of lenity and due-process basis for strict construction of penal statutes).
Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa. 2008) (when penal statute ambiguous, interpret in favor of defendant).